Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 January.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1987–88

Ordered,
That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1987–88, showing the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1988, and the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr.
Norman Lamont.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

General Practice (Cash Limits)

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to cash-limit general practice; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My objective is to achieve a good quality service for patients and value for money in general practice, as in the rest of the National Health Service. My hon. Friend may wish to await our proposals for the whole of the NHS which will be published shortly.

Mr. Hayes: As I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend appreciates the importance of general practitioners giving value for money to the patient and the taxpayer, will he take into account that they also act as a helpful safeguard—a safety valve—for a cash-limited hospital sector, which makes it important that there be the absolute minimum of Treasury interference?

Mr. Clarke: General practice is the key to a great deal of the British Health Service's success. The general practitioner is the first person to whom a patient looks for advice for himself and his family. The general practitioner is the gatekeeper to the rest of the Health Service, deciding on referrals to the most suitable part of the service. I certainly accept the value of general practice and I am sure that our proposals, when published, will underline its crucial role and seek to support general practitioners in carrying it out.

Ms. Harman: How does the Secretary of State answer patients' justifiable fears that when general practitioners

are kept to fixed budgets they will limit patient care so as to keep within the budget? Will not doctors give treatment to suit the budget rather than treatment that suits the patient, and what happens if the money runs out?

Mr. Clarke: At the moment, I am telling people with hypothetical fears about hypothetical proposals that they should wait for our full proposals to be published, together with the supporting arguments, which I am sure will set the hon. Lady's fears at rest.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the low percentage of GDP that we spend on our excellent Health Service is a measure of the value that we receive from general practitioners and their cost-effectiveness in delivering health care? Can he assure me that after the review of the NHS the general practitioners will play a leading role in delivering services to their patients?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and I shall try to match up to his hopes on the second point. We have a pretty cost-effective service. One reason for that is the fact that general practitioners refer people, thus making the best use of the hospital service. I much prefer our system to that which prevail in other countries, where patients are expected to have individual specialists for whatever complaint they think that they have, and thus go to the part of the service that they judge best, without professional advice.

Junior Doctors

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collects from district health authorities concerning the contracted hours of work of junior hospital doctors; and from what date such information has been collected.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): Information has been collected each year since 1976 on the number of contracted hours of duty for each junior hospital doctor in England and Wales. Contracted hours comprise hours of work and hours on call. They fell from an average of 91·3 hours in 1976 to 85·7 hours in 1986.

Ms. Armstrong: In the light of the grave concerns that junior hospital doctors are expressing about their ability properly to carry out their role, what reassurance can the Minister give to patients that their lives and future are safe in those hands?

Mr. Mellor: The hours that junior doctors work are determined by the heads of their clinical teams. A key part of the judgment of those who determine those hours is to ensure that the doctor carrying out the duties is capable of so doing. However, the Government are dissatisfied with the situation in which a significant minority of junior hospital doctors are expected to work and to be on call for far too many hours. Last June my predecessor asked each district to set up a working party, consisting largely of doctors, to eradicate any scheduling worse than one in three. We are in the middle of that exercise, but the evidence that we are receiving from the regional health authorities suggests that further reductions are being made as a result of that initiative. The working party is on course to report fully by the end of September.

Dame Jill Knight: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that not all specialties involve long hours for junior doctors in hospitals? Some are not really very bad. Secondly, is he aware that it has been put to me by professional concerns that because doctors' qualifications often depend on the hours worked in certain specialties, if the hours are shortened the time before qualification is likely to be much longer?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing into the debate certain points that have sometimes been missed. First, although junior doctors' hours are undoubtedly onerous throughout the service, it is a minority who work the hours that we all agree to be excessive. The last study carried out on the average number of hours worked in different specialties revealed that the average hours of work for a junior doctor in psychiatry were 46 hours per week, but in general surgery the figure rose to 67 hours per week, which is obviously very high. As my hon. Friend says, a key part of junior hospital doctors' training takes place on the ward, where they see difficult cases being treated. Plainly, any action taken to reduce the number of hours that junior doctors work must take into account the need for them to gain experience and to be capable when they become consultants—we hope that most will become consultants by their late thirties—of dealing with a wide range of problems.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that nowhere is it laid down that junior doctors must work so many hours continuously? I stress the word "continuously". We know about the average figures, but it is the word "continuous" in which I am interested. Continuous working must detract from performance. Is the Minister taking any steps to stop continuous working?

Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the middle of our initiative with a working party, consisting mainly of doctors, in each health district. We must see how that works out. The preliminary indications are that that is causing a reduction in the most onerous shifts in each region. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the number of hours that a person works, or during which he is on duty continuously, and whether that should be regulated. That is one of the matters that we have in our minds at present.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the word "average" is a little suspicious because it implies that many people are working a good deal more than the average as well as the fact that others are working a good deal less? Does he agree that many constituents are complaining that some of the doctors have established their case? I hope that he will proceed with all vigour to do something about this. I should like to draw attention to an article in The Evening Standard—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.

Mr. Mellor: The last time that a major sustained effort was made to reduce the extremely onerous shift patterns of some junior doctors was in 1982 and it resulted in a 30 per cent. reduction in extreme shifts. We hope to achieve a similar result or even an enhanced rate of progress with the present initiative. My hon. Friend should be aware that some of the difficulties are structural. The NHS must offer 24-hour cover in every hospital unit throughout the land.

Some of the ways in which junior doctors' hours could be cut—by rationalising services in each district on to one site, for example—would lead to equal concern among hon. Members if that meant that smaller hospital units had to be closed.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Minister is so dissatisfied with the excessive hours of junior hospital doctors, why do the Government propose to resist tomorrow the Bill introduced in another place to reduce those excessive hours to 72 per week, which many doctors still regard as excessive? How can it be right to limit the hours for which lorry drivers can drive and airline pilots can fly, but wrong to limit the hours during which junior doctors can carry out complex medical treatment? If the hon. and learned Gentleman expects the House to take seriously his commitment to reducing those excessive hours, will he assure the House that he will withdraw the circular that he issued only last November requiring junior doctors to cover for colleagues on sick leave and thus work even longer hours than at present?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is seriously in error if he thinks it a legitimate criticism of Ministers that we should be taking steps to prevent the expansion of a system whereby the NHS is obliged to pay £900 per week for the services of locum doctors from private agencies. The hon. Gentleman should look for a golden thread of principle to run through his representations. It does not seem to be there in this instance.
The hon. Gentleman is excessively simplistic for a man of his supposed sophistication if he thinks that a parallel can be drawn between a lorry driver who can pull off a motorway into a lay-by when his hours of duty have expired and the need for the NHS to offer 24-hour cover in every one of its hospital units. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he believes that a work pattern of 72 hours is an acceptable long-term basis, but immediate statutory intervention is far too simplistic to deal with the complex problem.

NHS Review

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates making a statement to the House on the National Health Service review.

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the Government's review of the National Health Service.

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include the abolition of the regional health authorities in his review of the National Health Service.

Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to bring forward proposals to remove local authority representatives from district health authorities.

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the working of the internal market of the National Health Service.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall be publishing a White Paper on Tuesday 31 January. I shall make a statement on that day.

Mr. Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that Nottingham district health authority which covers my constituency of Nottingham, North, as well as his own constituency, meets on Thursday? Will that be the last ever meeting at which there is local authority representation on the health authority? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the health authority is underfunded by £8 million, even on his own reckoning? Will he use the review to put that money back into the health authority or will the review be used to fiddle the figures and get rid of the RAWP formula?

Mr. Clarke: Nottingham health authority, like all the others, is a statutory body and legislation would be required to change its composition or its powers. The hon. Gentleman quoted the figure of £8 million. That is the target for the spending set under the RAWP formula, and one to which the region is much nearer than it has ever been before. The target is not any measure of underfunding—the hon. Gentleman is misusing the figure when he quotes it in that way. It is a target towards which the Government have moved the health authority rapidly.
There has been a huge growth in the resources going to Nottingham health authority over the past few years, not least because of the Government's consistent policy of sharing resources more fairly across the country and making sure that they are provided more equally than they used to be.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the National Health Service spends less of its budget on administration and bureaucracy than Marks and Spencer does? Is he committed to maintaining that level of efficiency? If so, will he give a categorical assurance that as a percentage of the National Health Service budget administrative and bureaucratic costs will not increase once the review proposals are implemented?

Mr. Clarke: I am not responsible for Marks and Spencer, so I cannot make the instant comparison that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. We need a non-bureaucratic and effective management system. Many of the figures bandied around about administrative costs of the National Health Service are not always what they appear because they tend to include only the staff costs of the health authorities which are, of course, just a small proportion of all the administration that goes on in hospitals and units throughout the country.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people are concerned about the continuing high cost of bureaucracy in the Health Service and that many, if not all, of the powers currently exercised by the regional health authorities could be devolved to the district authorities if not to the hospitals? If the Department of the Environment can negotiate successfully with 400 local authorities, presumably my right hon. and learned Friend's Department can manage with fewer than 200 district authorities.

Mr. Clarke: What we want is good quality decision-making and the right choice of priorities and that needs clear lines of management responsibility and accountability. We want good, effective management involving all the people in the Health Service and no bureaucratic systems at all. My hon. Friend will have to judge our proposals when he sees them in the White Paper. I agree with his instincts that the best decision-making is

often taken at the lowest level in large organisations and in this case it should take place as near as possible to the place where the patient has to be treated.

Mr. Blunkett: Just in case I am accused by The Guardian of reading my question, as I was last Friday, I shall put my notes down on the Bench.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the press speculation is correct, he believes that elected members at local level interfere politically with the management process? If he believes that, does he agree that that applies at national level and that if he removes elected members who are accountable at local level the first elected member who should be removed from interference with the Health Service is himself?

Mr. Clarke: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says about reporting in The Guardian. It is because we have such experiences that I do not always answer questions which begin, "If speculations in the press are to be believed". I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has read the White Paper proposals and the arguments in favour of them. I should then be grateful for his contribution and comments on the arguments.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the introduction of a more free internal market within the NHS would contribute, first, to a reduction in waiting lists in some areas and secondly, to keeping the costs of treatment down; and, thirdly, would enable those doctors and nurses who are particularly good at providing certain kinds of treatment to offer their skills for the benefit of a larger number of patients?

Mr. Clarke: There is now widespread interest in the concept of internal markets inside the NHS. The Government's review team has probably taken the work on internal markets and the possibility of turning that idea into a practical reality further than most other groups.
The point of interest in this subject is exactly as my hon. Friend says. We are seeking methods whereby money can move to those places where it will be used most effectively on behalf of the patients, so that where good quality care is being given by hospitals in response to the demands of GPs and their patients the resources will follow quickly and directly and people will have the incentive to do more.

Mr. Gill: What assurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House that under the terms of the review urgent attention will be paid to the important aspect of putting managers in a position to manage without the unnecessary constraints of bureaucracy?

Mr. Clarke: That must be an important aim in strengthening the NHS. We want everyone in the Health Service—managers, doctors, nurses and others—to be in a position to take clear, quick decisions in the interests of the patient. At the moment, as we all know, that clear, quick decision-making and choice of priority is not always made and the system is certainly capable of some improvement.

Mr. Rowlands: If the review is meant to cover the question of contracts for consultants, will it also cover the abuse that appears to be taking place whereby those consultants are recruiting their private patients from long waiting lists, particularly in the hip section and the ear, nose and throat section?

Mr. Clarke: Waiting lists are shorter than they used to be and we are making progress in bringing down waiting times. The waiting times initiative has already enabled 200,000 extra in-patients and 120,000 extra day cases to be treated. The key is waiting times. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to put a great deal of effort into getting waiting times down to more acceptable levels in areas and specialties where they are excessive, although in a great deal of the service and in many specialties there are no longer excessive waiting times and I am glad to say that we are making substantial progress.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper next week also include his response to the Griffiths report on community care and if not, when we can expect that response?

Mr. Clarke: No, it will not, but we owe the House and Sir Roy Griffiths and his colleagues a response to their report. It is an important subject and I hope to come forward with the Government's conclusions in the not too distant future.

Mr. Robin Cook: Has not the Secretary of State's White Paper now been so thoroughly leaked that it is already shot full of holes? Now that he has been good enough to give us a date for bringing forward his White Paper, will he tell us when he intends to respond to the Griffiths report which has been gathering dust for almost a year? Does his White Paper say anything about community care for the elderly? Does he recognise that if the only thing that his White Paper offers the elderly is a tax subsidy for private medical care it will be transparent that the only health problems he is worried about are those out of which someone else can make a profit?

Mr. Clarke: It is certainly true that there has been a great deal of speculation about the White Paper and it was predictable that the hon. Gentleman should denounce each and every proposal that he thinks we shall make. At least the knee-jerk reactions of the Labour party are now out of the way. I hope that we have cleared the ground for a serious discussion when the White Paper appears on 31 January. We shall follow it up with our reactions to and our decisions on the Griffiths proposals on community care as soon as possible.

Infant Mortality

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest available figure is for the infant mortality rate; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The latest available annual figure for the infant mortality rate in England and Wales is for 1987, and is 9·2 deaths per 1,000 live births. That is the lowest figure since records started.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but he will have received reports about the spate of cot deaths reported late last week. Such deaths are always traumatic for the parents. What steps is the Department taking to investigate the strange coincidence of six deaths within a matter of a few hours in a fairly narrow geographical area?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that they are traumatic. There is no easy answer, but over the past eight years infant mortality, which includes cot deaths, has shown a significant improvement, from about 12·8 per 1,000 to 9·2 per 1,000. I assure my hon. Friend that I will pursue an explanation for the unexplained coincidence of a number of cot deaths with the health authorities in Surrey and Hampshire.

Mr. Frank Field: Given our poor standing in the international league table for infant mortality, why are the Government content to let so many babies die unnecessarily?

Mr. Freeman: I do not accept the charge or allegation made by the hon. Gentleman. In comparing the record of this country with that of other countries one must bear in mind that we have a higher proportion of lower birth weight babies. That in turn may be due to the fact, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recently pointed out, that we have a higher incidence of teenage mothers who smoke.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I welcome the reduction in the perinatal mortality rates nationally, and certainly in the west midlands, but does my hon. Friend agree that that heightens the responsibility that we must show for pregnant mothers in my constituency, where I regret to say that the figure has increased to an all-time high? May I have an assurance that the Government recognise our problems and will investigate them without further ado?

Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government certainly take this seriously. Since 1980 there has been a threefold increase in the number of intensive care cots available for such cases.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the movement to reduce the figures, can the Minister assure us that the policy of not operating on children with heart problems who have Down's syndrome is not endorsed by the Government? They can have such treatment in other countries.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asked a detailed question, about which I shall write to him.

AIDS

Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent AIDS treatment is made available to foreigners.

Mr. Mellor: Whether free National Health Service hospital treatment for AIDS, or any other condition, is made available is not determined primarily by a patient's nationality but by whether the person is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will have heard reports last year that almost half the HIV-positive patients in one London hospital came from Dublin. He will also know of allegations that in the Irish Republic AIDS patients are publicly named and forcibly segregated unless they leave. Will my hon. Friend undertake to the House that the British taxpayer is not spending taxpayers' money on an AIDS drain from the Irish Republic and other foreign countries?

Mr. Mellor: I know of no evidence for any such AIDS drain. Of course, I shall consider any evidence—as against assertion—that my hon. Friend might have.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the problem of AIDS is international and that its resolution can be found only through international co-operation, does the Minister share my concern that the major work undertaken by Dr. Jarrett at Glasgow university may well be threatened by the proposed closure of the veterinary school there? Will his Department therefore join the many people in all parts of the House and from all walks of life who are trying to dissuade the University Grants Committee from following that ridiculous course?

Mr. Mellor: That was a rather contrived way of introducing a question which is for another Department to consider. If the hon. Lady feels that it is a matter for congratulation—as obviously she does—I add to the congratulations by commending her for her ingenuity, but I cannot add anything in my answer.

Mr. Alexander: While it may be regrettable that some foreigners are taking advantage of the facilities in Britain, is it not the case that AIDS is a scourge and should be dealt with wherever it is found, especially if it is found in this country?

Mr. Mellor: ; I am sure that that is precisely right. In fact, in accordance with international agreements, anybody who wishes to have an AIDS test while in the United Kingdom can have one. Indeed, AIDS knows no national boundaries, nor can it ever be confined within one national area or continent. We must all work together to deal with that scourge. I hope that the House has been encouraged by the compliments paid to us by Dr. Jonathan Mann of the World Health Organisation for our efforts in giving a lead in this matter.

Staff Regrading

Mr. leuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the appeals procedure set up following the regrading of hospital staff.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: These appeals are being dealt with under a long-standing general Whitley council agreement to which the nursing trades unions are a party and which they insisted should apply to the recent regrading exercise. I have asked health authority chairmen to adopt a range of measures aimed at ensuring that the appeals process works quickly and effectively.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister tell the House to what extent his Department will make available overtime payments or extra staff, because of the increased workload of managers, regrading officers and union stewards involved in these appeal procedures? If that is his Department's intention, will he make available extra resources to cover that extra work?

Mr. Clarke: All the staff who, in some places, have to put in a considerable amount of work to handle these appeals are being paid accordingly, and in line with national agreements which we have with them. I accept that in some places the appeals process is putting a considerable extra burden on management and in some places, no doubt, on the union side, too. We understand

that shop stewards are finding it difficult to keep up with the number of appeals. It is a pity that in many places nurses and midwives have been encouraged to put in appeals, regardless of the merits. I believe that everyone is slightly paying the price for the fact that the system was, I dare say, deliberately overloaded in some places. I know that everyone is trying to ensure that the process is carried out and that cases of individual mistake are corrected as soon as possible.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is it not the case that the vast majority of nurses and midwives are satisfied with the results of the regrading exercise and that a large number of the appeals against the decisions are politically motivated by the National Union of Public Employees and Confederation of Health Service Employees, which is using its own members—gulling and duping them and using them as their political war-horses rather than acting in their best interests by accepting what they have been given?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that my hon. Friend's assertion is self-evidently true throughout the country. He accurately describes the position of the majority of nurses and midwives. COHSE, NUPE and the Labour party have tried to stir up discontent and have tried to make political capital out of the situation. Unfortunately, by overloading the appeals procedure in some cases, they have been getting in the way of those people who have a genuine query about their grading and wish to have it sorted out by a sensible appeals process.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister make it clear to all health boards that enough additional resources will be made available to meet the results of successful appeals, and that the number of successful appeals will not be predetermined by the amount of money in the kitty?

Mr. Clarke: The appeals are being determined in line with the guidelines which were set out when we started. They are not in any way determined by any artificial cash limit. I am satisfied that we have funded this generous nurses' and midwives' pay settlement in full. Indeed, we funded it in full using the health authority's own figures. I do not foresee any cash problems arising as a result.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for remedying the anomaly whereby fully qualified nurses when entering midwifery training were actually losing money, thus obviating the number of appeals. Will he now ensure that any charge nurse undertaking additional responsibilities—for example, moving from grade I to grade 2—will receive some salary increase at the same time?

Mr. Clarke: We certainly were flexible on some of the points which arose in our discussions on the grading structure. One of the changes that we made was to deal with the problem of midwifery students, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is satisfied with the result.
Nurses will steadily pursue their careers by moving to posts that carry heavier responsibilities. For the first time we have a career structure and a grading system for nurses which assure that, as a nurse acquires more skill and responsibility, money is targeted upon the post that he or she then occupies. I believe that most nurses look forward to the opportunities with which they are now presented.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister realise that it was disastrous to undertake the regrading exercise at the present time? Is he aware that a lot of nurses are dissatisfied and will be leaving the Health Service? Can he guarantee that payment will be retrospective? As the reviews will take years rather than months, will interest payments be paid on top of the pay awarded?

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was wrong to regrade the nursing profession and to provide the career structure that I have just described. The hon. Gentleman is criticising not only myself, the Government and the management of the NHS, but all the trade unions which were party to the regrading exercise and which, at first, welcomed the career structure that it created.
We are trying to deal with the appeals as rapidly as possible and if it turns out that any nurse was incorrectly graded when the exercise was first carried out, that post will be graded properly and any back pay due from last April will be paid to the nurse in question.

Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any further representations from relevant interested groups and individuals on the proposed closure of the royal national orthopaedic hospital's accident and emergency unit at Stanmore, Middlesex, following the Minister of State's letter to the hon. Member for Harrow, East on 22 December 1988.

Mr. Mellor: As at 18 January 1988 we had received five further representations.

Mr. Dykes: After the sad and regrettable decision to close the unit, especially as it is so close to the Ml, I hope that, in future, the Minister of State will not underestimate the vital importance of keeping the rest of the hospital on its present site, if at all possible.

Mr. Mellor: Obviously, I am sorry that my hon. Friend has reservations about the closure of the accident and emergency unit. He will be aware of the pressure that we are under as a result of the report from the Royal College of Surgeons and others, to ensure that accident and emergency units throughout the country are capable of dealing with the full range of emergencies that might come to them. That means centralising on a fewer number of sites but, in fulfilling that need, I regret it if it has had the effect of damaging my hon. Friend's constituents' confidence in the service.
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to the continuation of the royal national orthopaedic hospital, but whether it remains on its present site is still to be determined.

Operating Theatres

Mr. Cohn Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to establish the costs of operating theatre procedures.

Mr. Freeman: Information on average costs per operating hour is being provided by health authorities for the first time for the 1987–88 financial year and this will be

published this summer. Our preliminary view is that such costs will be lower than the £450 per hour estimated by the National Audit Office.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that that information is vital to enable managements to plan their operating theatre utilisation? Does he also agree that if that information was coupled with an enhanced roll-over provision for finance from one year to the next, there could be substantially better theatre planning, which would mean a reduction in waiting lists and in the costs of operations? I urge my hon. Friend to press for an improvement in the roll-over provision.

Mr. Freeman: I can hold out no hope to my hon. Friend that we will change the percentage—the ability to carry forward up to half a per cent. of the combined revenue and capital limits. I agree that there is scope for improved planning. We need better financial and management information systems and clinicians in the Health Service need to become more involved in the management of resources, including operating theatre usage.

Mr. Alton: When considering the costs involved in carrying out kidney transplants, will the Minister consider the allegation that, in the private sector, two Turkish men were paid £2,000 to provide their kidneys for transplant? What action is his Department taking to outlaw such procedures?

Mr. Freeman: The Government have made it plain that commercial trade in vital organs is absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable. I have asked Bloomsbury health authority to investigate the allegations.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will have to provide information not only about costs, but waiting lists. Will he ensure that information about the excellent practices of efficient theatres is disseminated throughout the country so that those authorities that lag behind can bring themselves up to scratch?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, we shall ensure that that is done. The waiting list initiative, which will be worth ?31 million in the next financial year, is likely to result in increased treatment for more than 100,000 in-patients.

Mr. Rooker: When the figures are available, will the Minister ensure that there is a health warning attached to them explaining how they are affected by operating sessions being stood down and patients being telephoned on the morning that they are due to go into hospital and being told that they cannot have their operations? By how much will such incidents affect the figures that the Minister will produce?

Mr. Freeman: About 10 per cent. of all operating theatre sessions are planned and then cancelled for a variety of reasons. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there could be better planning by health authorities, surgeons and consultants in the use of operating theatres.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the operating theatre costs at the eye, ear and throat hospital in Shrewsbury would be greatly increased if the pre-med and recovery areas were not situated in corridors? It is time that the regional health authority was sacked or made to act on this disgraceful matter.

Mr. Freeman: That is a matter for the local health authority concerned. However I assure my hon. Friend that I will pursue his point.

Mr. Galbraith: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time at Health questions. Does he agree that the most important factor of an operation is not its cost but its outcome as to mortality or morbidity? In the light of the review, what are the Government's plans for collecting information on mortality and morbidity and what considerations are they giving to making that information available, and in particular to whom?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman must await the National Health Service review for some detailed proposals. However, it is certainly the Department's policy to collect up-to-date statistics and I shall ensure that they are more regularly available to the House.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the in-patient waiting list figures were for the Trent regional health authority in March 1988, 1987 and 1979.

Mr. Freeman: There were 54,900 patients on the in-patient waiting list in Trent region at March 1988. That is a 5 per cent. reduction over March 1987 when the list stood at 57,700, and 25 per cent. lower than the 72,900 patients on the list at March 1979.

Mr. Patnick: Is it not a fact that Trent regional hospital has treated more out-patients and that with extra funding even more patients will be treated? Does that not give the lie to the scare stories put about by the Opposition?

Mr. Freeman: Between 1978 and 1986 the number of in-patients treated in the National Health Service increased by 19 per cent., and in my hon. Friend's own region the increase was even more impressive as there was a 28 per cent. increase in the rate of in-patient treatment.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the waiting lists in the Trent region remain disgracefully high? My constituent, Mr. George Brown, aged 82, who is tortured with pain so that he can scarcely sleep, has been told that he can see an orthopaedic surgeon in October, 10 months after his doctor recommended that he should see a surgeon with a view to treatment and surgery? Will the Minister please take steps to deal with that case and with other similar patients waiting in agony in my constituency.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. and learned Gentleman must take the matter up with his local health authority, but am sure that he will welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken over the past few years and for the forthcoming year. There has been a waiting list initiative of £25 million per annum in the past, and £31 million is being provided next year to treat more than 100,000 in-patients more quickly than otherwise would have been possible.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the resolution of the waiting list problem in Trent and in Nottingham owes as much to the RAWP formula as it does to the special initiatives that I know

my hon. Friend has taken. Therefore can I say yes please to his special initiatives and to the continuation of the RAWP formula which will help my district and my area?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced increases in allocations to health authority regions of about 2·5 per cent. per annum in real terms for next year. These are additional resources which will go a long way to help not only with waiting lists but with improvement in patient care.

Scientists and Technicians

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to improve retention and recruitment of scientists and technicians in the National Health Service.

Mr. Mellor: I understand that the management sides of the appropriate Whitley councils are investigating the nature and scale of reported problems. It is for the management and staff sides of the Whitley councils to consider what, if any, further action should be taken.

Mr. Smith: Is that reply not hopelessly complacent in view of the acute shortage of scientists in Oxford and elsewhere in the National Health Service, the vital nature of the work that they do and the fact that they are paid 40 per cent. less on average than scientists outside the service' Is it not scandalous that even now the very management side to which the Minister refers is threatening to withdraw the miserable 5·5 per cent. pay offer that was made for the as yet unresolved negotiations which were supposed to be settled last April? What is the Minister doing through the management side to tackle this matter, which puts patient care at risk?

Mr. Mellor: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman commends the Whitley council system—the opposition on the council prevents any reform of the system—but then invites Ministers to move in and push the system aside. I am bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, whatever he may say about this, that, or the other problem affecting scientists in the National Health Service, the number of scientists in the service has gone up by 57 per cent. since 1979.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Prime Minister noted the comments of her hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) who last week said that MI5, after the general election of 1979, fingered six Conservative Members of Parliament as unsuitable for office? Will the Prime Minister confirm that she received a report on each


of those Members? Will she also confirm that each of those Members has been blacklisted for ministerial appointment? Does she not believe that all those Members have a right to know what charges were made against them so that they can clear their names?

The Prime Minister: I noted the comments of my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington will not be surprised at my reply—indeed he could almost have dictated it as he studied his question. I follow the rules of my predecessors: I do not comment on security matters.

Q2. Mr. Page: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Page: As my right hon. Friend is in overall charge of policy and in charge of the policy review committees, can she assure the House that the members of those committees, and particularly the Ministers, enthusiastically and regularly attend those meetings? I ask because in the latest edition of the Tribune it is said that due to lack of interest, due to lack of attendance, seven national policy committees have been cancelled by the Labour party.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the question was about Ministers, not about the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: As regards my responsibilities, I confirm that my colleagues, right hon. and hon., regularly and punctually attend all committees, and are skilful, forceful and effective in their comments and in the implementation of policy following such meetings.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that, recently, thousands of pensioners who last year received a mediocre—a small—increase, over and above their basic pension entitlement, which was due to a heating allowance or some such payment, have been told not to expect any increase in their pension from next April? How would the Prime Minister and her husband like to live on a pension of £55 a week with no increase?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that all the special sums allocated to heating allowances for particular people were lumped together and distributed among those entitled to income support so that they received it regularly. That was done with the approval of the House. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the upratings for pensions in the future have been announced. Unlike the Labour party's figures, they follow precisely the RPI figure, and there was no fiddling with the RPI figure.

Mr. Favell: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are deeply opposed to the Griffiths proposals that town halls should devise care packages for the elderly and handicapped? What about the family, the family doctor and the district nurse?

The Prime Minister: We shall consider precisely what to propose to the House on the Griffiths report but that will not be before the National Health Service review has been completed.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that her Government take a bigger share in taxation from the incomes of the majority of families and earners than any Government in history?

The Prime Minister: The overall burden of taxation is falling. It is true that there was a time under the previous Labour Government when the burden was less than it is now. That was because they borrowed so much—[Interruption.] Indeed, borrowing went up to 9 per cent. of GDP because they had neither the skill nor the guts to cover their expenditure by taxation. They left the debts for us to repay.

Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister give an honest answer to an honest question? Does the Prime Minister recall saying that the share of the nation's income taken by the state must be steadily reduced? Can she tell us why, under her Government, it has been increased to a higher level than under any previous Government, Conservative or Labour?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's Government borrowing requirement rose to 9 per cent. of GDP which—in terms of today's money—meant that they were borrowing the equivalent of £40 billion a year. We are now having to tax to repay the debt that they created. They always leave debts saddled around the necks of their children.

Sir John Stokes: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that I am not one of those who constantly asks for more spending of taxpayers' money. However, did she hear the recent remarks of my noble Friend Lord Blake about the dire straits of our historical records and great manuscripts that are in danger of being permanently damaged unless more funds are made available to look after them properly?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that this Government set up the English Heritage foundation and gave it substantial finance to ensure that there was sufficient money available to keep those objects that are particularly valuable. There are also other Government agencies that protect and look after our heritage. I am sure that Lord Charteris will look into these matters.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell: What advice does the Prime Minister have for young families and couples who face mortgage increases of £50 and £60 a month? Has she the same advice as the Chancellor, who said that people in those categories must make cuts elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: Quite obviously, those people—particularly those who very recently purchased houses and, therefore, did so at the top end of the market—are having particular difficulty with mortgage increases. That does not alter the fact that we must put the reduction of inflation at the top of the list, and we have to do that through interest rates. Those who purchased their houses before that time, have enjoyed a considerable increase in


capital. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, often those who lend money to others to purchase houses do not do as well as those who buy the houses.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations for the support which she is giving to the world ozone conference? Does she agree that the destruction each year of an area equivalent to Great Britain of Brazilian rain forest highlights another major threat to the world? Will she outline to the House the measures that the Government intend to take to alleviate the problem?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the second part of the world ozone conference is being held in London on 7 March when we hope to cut the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons by 85 per cent. from what they were. We have already reached our target of cutting them by 50 per cent. We think that we should go further. The other matter which he mentioned has more to do with carbon dioxide, or the greenhouse effect. The cutting down of tropical forests on the present scale is having an adverse effect. The overseas aid Department, under my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), takes into account the willingness of countries to keep their tropical forests when giving aid to them.

Dr. Cunningham: Since when?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said before—of course, he was not here—he would have known that this is not a new policy. It indicates the great significance which we attach to the keeping of tropical rain forests.

Mr. Sean Hughes: Does the Prime Minister share the view expressed earlier by the Secretary of State for Defence that no responsible British Government should rule out the possibility of having to fight, and presumably win, a conventional war in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain what my right hon. Friend said but we both hold precisely the same view—[Laughter.] That could have been better put, could it not? I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman's report of what my right hon. Friend said is correct; indeed, I doubt it. Let me make it clear; conventional weapons, however strong, have not been enough to prevent war from starting. That is the lesson of history. Conventional weapons alone have not been enough to prevent the start of world war. We believe strongly that it is vital to have a nuclear deterrent. It is that which has kept the peace in the last 40 years.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mitchell: Given that health care has been, is and will continue to be provided on the basis of need and not on the basis of ability to pay, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Pavlovian reaction of distress from the

Opposition Benches is completely synthetic in view of the fact that the review is designed to inject added efficiency to ensure that resources for patient care go further?

The Prime Minister: Certainly the Health Service will continue to be available as now on the basis of those who need health care getting it at the time when they need it. One point of the review is to get better value for money from the enormous extra resources in money, nurses and doctors which are being put into the service. The National Health Service is steadily increasing its efficiency. We now treat 1 million more in-patients and 2·5 million more out-patients a year than 10 years ago. That is a considerable achievement.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: Did the Prime Minister see "Panorama" last night, which showed the Salvation Army handing out stale bread on council estates in Scotland? When will the Prime Minister come out from that bullet-proof Daimler of hers and start visiting some social security offices and council estates up and down the country to see the stale bread society that she is creating for millions of people?

The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is quite aware, and dislikes it intensely, that the level of spending on social security exceeds anything that was available under his Government. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I thought his comment was a great insult to the Salvation Army.

Mr. Wilshire: Following the inauguration of a new American President last Friday, will my right hon. Friend find the time to convey to former President Reagan the thanks of the House for his great contribution to world peace and to NATO? Will she also find the time to express to President Bush the best wishes of the House for his terrn of office?

The Prime Minister: Immediately before he left office I expressed our great thanks, and our appreciation to President Reagan for all that he has done for sure defence and for extending freedom the world over. On the day of his inauguration, I expressed our congratulations and best wishes to President Bush, and assured him that we would continue to be a true and faithful ally in defence of freedom.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: If the economy is as strong as the Prime Minister has been saying, why do sections 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 remain unimplemented, despite being given Royal Assent more than two and a half years ago?

The Prime Minister: I had the impression that two sections had come into effect and that we were ready to implement the third when we have secured agreement from local authorities. In the meantime, may I point out that,


because the economy is strong, we have been able to spend about 90 per cent. more in real terms on the disabled than any previous Government.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 4126/88 and 7396/88, relating to machine safety, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Points of Order

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter on which I hope that you will be able to give me and the House some guidance, which is the way in which the rights of hon. Members who represent their constituents is being infringed.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on 10 November we debated some new guidelines with regard to immigration cases. Yesterday, I had cause to use those guidelines for the first time, in the case of a father wishing to stay in this country for a brief period in order to make long-term arrangements for the care of a four-year-old child who had been battered and abandoned by her mother. The father was refused leave of entry, but has been allowed to remain here for a couple of days.
I sought to raise the father's case with the Minister, under the guidelines, which say that a stay can be allowed if an hon. Member can demonstrate that
there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which the immigration officer has had an opportunity to consider but has not taken sufficiently into account."—[Official Report, 10 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 520.]
I was first told that I was not allowed to raise this matter with the private office, although the guidelines say that that is almost the only sort of case that can be raised directly with the private office. I was then told that these circumstances were not exceptional and compelling because the junior civil servant who was involved in the case, and the immigration officer who first took the decision, had decided that these were not exceptional and compelling circumstances and that the case for a stop had not been made.
That is a gross infringement of the rights of hon. Members, when those who take the initial decision pronounce on whether a case can be put to the Minister for careful and sustained consideration. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about what hon. Members can do about this gross removal of their rights. If such a precedent was followed in other Departments, it would mean that hon. Members had no freedom to decide what cases they raised with Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised an individual case, which she should take up with the Department and Minister concerned. I cannot give her guidance on tactics but there are opportunities. I hope that she will seek them in order to raise the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time today, the Secretary of State for Health grouped together with question No. 3. four other questions, two of which, by strict definition, were not even related to question No. 3. Do you agree that it is annoying when so many questions are taken together at one time, because it limits the rights of other Members to ask supplementary questions on what may be an important issue? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider giving an informal judgment that a maximum of two questions may be taken with another question?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is up to the Department concerned to decide which questions should be grouped.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is an attack on a Tory Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In some cases, when questions are grouped together, we are able to make better progress, and today we managed to deal with 14 questions in 40 minutes, which is not bad going.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in connection with the private business listed for 7 o'clock this evening, the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill. It has been drawn to my attention that a letter is circulating among Conservative Members, signed by four of them, making specific allegations about my motives for opposing the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh."]—which are wholly untrue—
[Interruption.] I wish Tory Members would be quiet. A nursery is better behaved than they are.
The letter makes specific allegations, which are wholly untrue, about my reason for opposing the Bill—for example, that Bristol city council, "a hard Left council—"

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter that the hon. Lady is raising is not a point of order. There will be a debate on the matter later tonight. If she were raising a matter of order with which I could deal, I would seek to deal with it, but I am not responsible for what Conservative Members may be circulating in a letter.

Ms. Primarolo: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. The letter alleges that I am merely the agent of Bristol city council in this House. I seek your guidance, and ask you to rule, on whether that is an infringement of my parliamentary rights and duties.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not an infringement. I suggest that the hon. Lady go into the attack when we reach the matter at 7 o'clock.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May one inquire why the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was not present in the Committee upstairs when the subject was discussed? She could have made her point there.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), Mr. Speaker. I was the Labour Member who received that letter. I think it was sent to me inadvertently. It was probably meant for the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). I inadvertently opened it and inadvertently read it—[Laughter.]—and then inadvertently passed it on—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order with me?

Mr. Banks: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that surely, at the very least, it is not courteous for hon. Members to circulate letters about another hon. Member in which a number of falsehoods appear. As a matter of courtesy, that cannot be considered good practice.

Mr. Speaker: I wish that I could be the recipient of some of these letters that circulate. I am afraid that I do not know what was in that letter, but I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that courtesy in our dealings with each other is most important.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the excellent point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, when a Minister seeks to group questions for answer, he prefaces his answer with the words "with permission"? With whose permission does a Minister group questions?

Mr. Speaker: That too is courtesy. It is a matter for the Minister concerned. I note what has been said on this subject, and I shall reflect on it.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the 18th of this month I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary Rugby League group, which was attended by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Officers of the group subsequently discovered that he had attended not as a member of the group but to take notes as a Government Whip on the business taking place. I believe this to be a gross intrusion into the works and activities of all-party groups, and the policing of those groups by the Government is totally unacceptable. It was an embarrassment both to the group officers and to our guests.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to give an assurance that you will speak to the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip to stop this unacceptable policing practice of all-party group activities.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. It may have demonstrated an interest in rugby football.

British Racing Commission

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a single national commission of control for the whole of the horse and dog racing industries, with overall responsibility for the bloodstock, thoroughbred breeding and betting industries, incorporating the control of the financial arrangements, rules and aims of current bodies, their other responsibilities and where applicable, the assets of all publicly funded or publicly supported organisations concerned or connected with these sports.
I find it necessary to refer early in my speech to the horse and dog racing sectors as industries, as I believe it is central to both the Bill as proposed and my argument for such a body that recognition is given to the scale of industrial, commercial and financial involvement within these sports, which currently employ well over 100,000 people, involve billions of pounds of public and private assets, handle a current annual turnover of well over £3 billion in betting income and, last but not least, have the daily interest, support and following of millions of punters and racegoers.
I personally cannot claim the credit for arguing the need for such a body, for it has been called for from within all parts of racing for many years. Most notably, the Rothschild commission recommended in the Seventies that immediate steps be taken to establish a British Racing Authority involving all groups with interests in racing. The need for such a body is even more urgent now than it was then, as the lack of action since these recommendations has worsened the situation considerably, with dismay, disenchantment and disillusion being the order of the day among all but a select few groups and individuals in the industries.
Such dissatisfaction has been widely seen in recent times. For example, a public row has taken place between the Horserace Betting Levy Board, a body set up in 1961 by this House following the legislation of off-course betting, and the bookmakers, who cannot agree on the amount of money horse racing should receive from them—or, even worse, for dog racing, whether it should get any levy at all.
Next come the bookmakers' organisations themselves: first the National Association of Bookmakers, the body that represents primarily the small bookmaker both on and off course throughout Britain. It maintains that it is given only secondary consideration in matters of major concern to its predominantly small business members.
Then there is the Betting Office Licensees Association, set up by the big four bookmakers—Coral, William Hill, Ladbrokes and Mecca. This organisation is seen by many in the industry, rightly or wrongly, as at times receiving preferential consideration, against the long-term interests of the industry. In particular, a row continues over what many see as the unjust influence exerted by some members of this group in being allowed to continue to pocket levies from greyhound bets instead of ploughing them back into the sport itself.
There is argument within the industry as to whether a sound financial deal was reached over the Satellite Information Service agreement for the live screening of races off course, in betting shops, and there is disillusionment among owners, who not only have to meet rising costs for the training and care of their horses and
dogs but have to put up with extremely low prize money in most races. This is shown by the fact that, in dog racing, the average first prize is only £25, even though betting could amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds off course in betting shops, while in horse racing the vast majority of prize money is won by a tiny minority of owners, making it nearly impossible for them even to recoup their investment. Worse still, they have to pay for the privilege of providing their horse for racing, including entry, transport and veterinary costs.
The breeding industry is in dire need of support. Other nations, particularly Ireland, France, Germany and Italy, do much to help the small breeder. A British racing commission would greatly enhance the possibility of improvements in that area, particularly after 1992, with the single European market. Proof of that can be seen in the way in which Britain's main competitors in thoroughbred breeding in Europe receive distinct advantages over ours, especially on VAT rates. For example. VAT on horses in France is 5·5 per cent., in Germany, 7 per cent,. and in Italy, 9 per cent., while under annex 4F of the EEC directive, Ireland continues to enjoy complete exemption.
I welcome the work of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Jockey Club to enhance prize moneys in racing, but the long-term security of the British breeding industry would be better served if it were part of a larger umbrella management, which would have greater strength and be able to deal more directly with all matters, including thoroughbred breeding.
Race courses are causing great unrest within all aspects of the industry. For instance, the ownership of some horse and dog racing tracks and stadiums by bookmaking firms has caused the raising of more than one eyebrow, particularly since arrangements have been made for improvements in Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services and SIS. Just as importantly, there is a growing trepidation in racing over the power of the large bookmakers, particularly Ladbrokes, which now not only owns greyhound stadiums and racecourses in Britian, but holds major portfolios of ownership of race courses abroad.
At home, the state of many of the current 59 horse racing courses have given rise to severe criticism about how the industry is allowed to be run. Many racing experts believe that it is a miracle that there has not yet been a major disaster at one of the 59 registered courses. Many course buildings are nothing more than outdated wooden mission huts, which on race days are severely overcrowded and could be a great danger to those using them.
A recent survey on seven race courses—Windsor, Wolverhampton, Salisbury, Newbury, Folkestone, Kempton Park and Ascot—gave harrowing details of the facilities available for those who work in the industry. With the exception of the Kempton and Ascot facilities, which were considered good, all were considered inadequate. For instance, Windsor was described as cold, crowded and badly designed. The women's hostel slept eight in bunks and the men's hostel was worse, sleeping 16 in bunk beds with only basic facilities. Toilets were visible from the outside, and could be clearly seen from the women's hostel.
At Wolverhampton, the women's hostel is an old detached building in a poor state of repair and decoration. It sleeps 11 with four bunk beds and three single beds with old mattresses. Bathroom facilities are appalling with only
one hand basin, one toilet and one shower. It had no curtains, and windows were nailed down. The accommodation was damp, with poor heating. The men's hostel consisted of a large dormitory, adjacent to the canteen, sleeping 28. It had no windows, and old ex-Army style beds with dirty mattresses which showed signs of bed wetting.
At Salisbury, the women's hostel has a public corridor, a dormitory with six single beds, one bathroom and no wardrobes or clothes-hanging facilities. The men's hostel is as bad, with eight rooms containing two or three beds and no privacy from outside. A narrow passageway to the showers is situated next to the women's accommodation.
At Newbury, the women's hostel consists of one room on the first floor adjacent to the stable manager's office. It has six beds in curtained cubicles, with no cupboards or wardrobes, and there is a crude toilet downstairs. The male hostel is worse, with 44 beds, no cupboards and a bathroom with only two showers and four hand basins.
Unless money is directly invested in those race courses, many will have to close. There is no evidence that the present racing management is responding to the needs.
The punters of the industry play little part in the decision-making process, yet they are the people who make possible the continuation of racing, whether in greyhound stadiums, race courses and betting shops or merely for viewing from the armchair at home. No real mechanism exists which guarantees their participation or, for that matter, their protection, which is surprising when one considers the fact that it is their money which enables the industry to flourish. That point was not lost on Anthony Fairbairn, chairman of the Racegoers Club, who recently said:
It is the punter who pays the levy not the bookmaker … In addition to betting tax of £300 million he is already paying about £75 million each year in levy to the racecourses he visits.
That point was not lost on Robert Fisher of the Punters Association, who has spoken against the sell-off of off-course tote betting shops to the combined forces of the Jockey Club and the Racecourse Association Ltd. He believes that it is
an attempt to take over public assests for a peppercorn in order to benefit vested interest.
Although hon. Members may have different opinions from those that I have previously promoted, no one can dispute that the representation of punters' views can and should be part of the legitimate decision-making process of management.
Those who work in these industries should be represented in the management structure. Currently, many thousands of people work as jockeys, stable staff, transporter drivers, betting shop and totalisator staff, starting stall attendants, kennel staff, catering staff and others without whom the industries would not be able to operate, who have representation only on the advisory body—the Horseracing Advisory Council—whose work. I greatly commend. Its structure, in part, mirrors a model on which could be built the type of body that I feel is necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the hon. Gentleman that he has now had 10 minutes. Will he please bring his remarks to a close?

Mr. Meale: I so move.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Pat Wall, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Max Madden and Mr. Harry Barnes.

BRITISH RACING COMMISSION

Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to establish a single national commission of control for the whole of the horse and dog racing industries, with overall responsibility for the bloodstock, thoroughbred breeding and betting industries, incorporating the control of the financial arrangements, rules and aims of current bodies, their other responsibilities and where applicable, the assets of all publicly funded or publicly supported organisations concerned or connected with these sports. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Opposition Day

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY] [FIRST PART]

Food (Consumer Protection)

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for its failure properly to protect consumers.
I must begin by saying how sorry we are that the Minister has been taken ill and is unable to be with us today. I know that I speak for the whole House when I wish him a speedy and full recovery and look forward to seeing him back at the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The Labour party's decision to debate this vital issue was not taken lightly. It reflects our growing concern about the Government's failure to protect consumers—an opinion increasingly, and correctly, held by the general public. It is not an attempt to attack the farmers who produce our food, because there is an identity of interest between farmers and consumers. We believe that our debate will be helpful to farmers because public confidence in the wholesomeness, purity and safety of our food has been severely shaken.
It has been necessary for us to force this debate today because, by its failure to ensure the quality of food in Britain, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has undermined that public confidence. The Ministry has failed to recognise that, in an age of fast-changing food technology and increasing use of convenience food, the threat of food contamination is increasing. I remind the House that food poisoning has increased massively, from the 14,000 cases that were notified in 1982 to 40,000 cases in 1988. That is a threefold increase in seven years and, of course, the figures reported are only the tip of the iceberg.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman consider seriously the point that there has been a demand to get rid of additives and preservatives, but that the younger generation of housewives have been accustomed to preservatives and are not used to the old-fashioned methods of preparing food that were used by their mothers and grandmothers, when preservatives were not available?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady has made her point clearly and has reminded us all of the need for food hygiene. Hygiene in the kitchen is only a small part of that, because we really need a hygiene programme for the whole nation, starting at the point of—I was going to say production—but at the preproduction stage and going right through every chain of food production. Although I accept the hon. Lady's point, I do not agree with her specific argument.
The Ministry has increasingly listened to the producers' side. I thought that the Minister gave the game away last week when, in a written answer to myself, he acknowledged that in 1988 he had met the National
Farmers Union of England and Wales on 37 occasions and the National Consumer Council only twice. That proves part of my case.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I have with me a list of all Labour's Supply debates going back to 1979, and not a single one directly relates to food and the consumer. Is that omission by the Labour party the result of its satisfaction or its neglect of the issue?

Dr. Clark: I am somewhat surprised and perplexed by the Minister's intervention. Far from hitting the middle stump, I suspect that he bowled a wide. He knows the truth of our point that last year the Minister met the NFU 37 times but the National Consumer Council—the Government's own statutory body—only twice.

Mr. Paul Marland: rose—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Dr. Clark: I am happy to give way, but if I do so, my speech, which I intend to be short, will be longer, and that may mean that some hon. Members who wish to speak will not be able to do so. I have already given way twice, and if I do so again, some hon. Members may not be able to speak.

Mr. Ryder: rose—

Dr. Clark: I happily give way to the Minister.

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman has failed to answer my question and because he has failed to do so, I shall give him the answer. It was contained in an article in Tribune magazine on 11 November 1988, in which the hon. Gentleman stated that food is
a huge field we have neglected".

Dr. Clark: As the debate unfolds, and I start developing our strategy, the Minister and the House will see that, far from us coming new to this subject, we have been planning and developing it for some considerable time. I shall explain that in a moment.
Our case is not only that the Government have ignored the consumer, but, worse than that, when the Government appoint members to their own statutory advisory committees, such as the Food Advisory Committee, the premier committee, they go out of their way deliberately to exclude the consumer—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) may laugh, but I repeat that, of the 15 members on that premier food committee, only one represents the consumer. We maintain—

Mr. Ryder: rose—

Dr. Clark: I am sorry, but we have certain rules, and the Minister will perhaps have two occasions later today to deploy his case. He had better deal with his points then.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend knows that it will not go unnoticed outside the House that so far he has raised issues of safety, the consumer, food poisoning and health, but that all we have had on two occasions so far—there has been a third attempt—are petty party political points from the Minister.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. When he hears the case developed, he will see why the Minister is keen for us to obscure the debate, not on the basis of real facts, but of cheap party points.

Mr. David Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I have tried to give way to both sides, and have done so fairly.
I agree with the National Consumer Council that this situation is not good enough. I agree with it when it says:
It is essential that the consumer interest is effectively represented when national food policy is made.
I wish to turn from this structural weakness in the public's voice to the operational aspect of the Ministry. Perhaps I could turn back to 1986 and Chernobyl because, in the aftermath of Chernobyl, the Government had a specific and obvious duty to protect the public. However, their response has been found wanting by all who have examined it. From first learning of the high levels of radioactivity in sheep, it took the Government seven weeks to impose restrictions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. While the Government dillied and dallied, sheep from areas of high radioactivity went to slaughter. According to the Government's own Meat and Livestock Commission, there were 50,000 such sheep in Cumbria alone. When we include Scotland and Wales, the total figure is likely to be about 100,000.
It is little wonder that the Select Committee on Agriculture concluded:
It must therefore be highly probable
that sheep above the safety level entered the food chain. That is the case on the figures produced by the Government's own statutory body, the Meat and Livestock Commission.
Let me turn from sheep to milk. Under pressure from the drug producers, such as Monsanto and Eli Lilly, the Government have been a soft touch. From secret documents we now know that the drug manufacturers singled out Britain as the key to the European market for bovine somatotropin, the milk-producing hormone, because they considered that there was likely to be the least political opposition here and because we have the most lax licensing system. The result is that the Government have allowed the drug companies to run trials with BST being injected into cows on 15 farms around the country. The location of those farms has been one of the most guarded secrets of the Ministry. I must pay credit and tribute at this stage to a fine piece of journalism in that most excellent newspaper, the Shields Gazette and Shipping Telegraph, which uncovered one of the farms in Cockle Park in Northumberland.
What is more, not only have those farms been kept secret, but the milk has been allowed to go directly into the milk supply. Many consumers are unwittingly drinking milk produced with BST on those experimental projects. The British public have been used as guinea pigs, and that simply is not good enough.
Let me turn now to more recent times, to the publicity surrounding salmonella and eggs. The Select Committee is currently trying to get to the truth of the issue, but we are not helped by the refusal of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to give evidence to that Committee. The country has the right to know on what basis she, as the Minister of the Crown, made her infamous remark on 3 December 1988. Was there any substantiation


in the files of the Department of Health, or has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food done a deal to conceal the evidence? We have a right and a need to know the answer.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I must get on. I am trying to be as quick as I can.
The House, the medical profession and the general public know that there is a problem with salmonella, but the Government have obscured the extent of the problem.

Mr. Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: No. I have given way generously to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are short of time.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee of Procedure, I must say to you that we are conducting an inquiry into standards of behaviour in this Chamber. One of the difficult points for the Committee to determine is whether standards of behaviour are responsible or irresponsible, disciplined or indisciplined. I ask you to take note of the fact that my hon. Friend has today been speaking for about 12½i minutes, that there have been seven interventions by Conservative Members and that the interruptions have been disciplined by the Whips on the second Bench and led by the Minister from the Dispatch Box. I ask you to take note of this so that the Select Committee can record it in its proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman's point of order gives me an opportunity to tell the House that many hon. Members wish to speak and that the debate is very short.

Dr. Clark: Even last week, the Minister was forced to acknowledge in the House that the measures that he had just announced were not new. If there was nothing new, the question must now be why the powers now judged essential for the protection of public health were not used earlier. It remains a mystery to us why the Minister refuses to prosecute the 21 protein processing plants that were found to be contaminated with salmonella in 1987, or the 17 which were found to be similarly contaminated last year. Will he confirm that some of the 21 plants found to be contaminated in 1987 were subsequently found to be so again in 1988? Why does he refuse to name the two flocks of hens identified by the communicable disease centre as a source of repeated epidemics? Will he now take the opportunity to clear the air and tell the House the names of the offending farms? As the general public, we have the right to know the answer in both those cases.
Hard on the heels of salmonella we have the listeria issue. It is clear that, following television and media disclosures, we have a major problem with listeria. Not only has the dedicated Professor Lacey of Leeds university produced evidence—[Interruption.] I thought that Conservative Members might challenge that, so I have also consulted other sources. For example, environmental health officers in Bristol found listeria in three out of 31 cooked chicken products and in three out of five raw chicken products examined. Further evidence to support

the arguments of Professor Lacey comes more recently from Leeds, where the local authority found that seven out of 12 samples taken were contaminated with listeria, and from Peterborough, where six out of 17 fell into that category.
The Minister knows that that is the truth of the situation. Why does he ignore all the evidence that listeria can multiply in temperatures as low as 4 deg C? Why will the Government not heed the evidence and insist that adequate storage temperatures be maintained for the type of product most readily contaminated with listeria, and that the maximum shelf life be specified?

Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I must get on.
I could give many other examples, but time does not allow me to do so. It is clear that the Government are guilty of neglecting consumer safety; indeed, they are often the direct cause of that neglect. As hon. Members know, our system of public health protection rests largely on inspections and checks, often by environmental health officers, yet, as a result of pressure on local authorities, there is a shortage of environmental health officers. That problem is exacerbated by the cutting of training places, resulting in approximately 430 vacancies last year. The number of food inspections is down by 15 per cent. Even the number of man years of people employed by the Ministry in visiting and advising abattoirs on hygiene and welfare standards has dropped from 53 in 1983 to 45 in 1987. That is the extent of the Government's commitment to these matters.
The Government have also just announced a massive 30 per cent. cut in the research and development of food and agriculture. How can they justify such a slashing of the R and D budget, which is vital to protect public health in Britain? A glaring example of the folly of these cuts is to be found in salmonella prevention techniques. At the food research institute in Bristol, funding has been withdrawn from a programme aimed at finding a method of preventing salmonella in poultry. A mere £300,000 is needed to complete the work. I ask the Minister even at this late hour to reinstate the three workers who have been given their redundancy notices. How can he find £19 million at the drop of a hat to reimburse the egg producers, but not find £300,000 for this vital research?
It is widely believed that two out of three institutes of food research will be closed, and it looks as if Bristol will he a casualty. Much valuable work is done there on food safety and quality, and the animal welfare aspects of meat production. Interestingly enough, one of the other projects under threat is a process for reducing contamination of meat by bacteria, including listeria. Can it really be in the consumers' interests that the Government should stop that work, particularly at a time when we are facing an epidemic of food poisoning and when there is growing public concern about the wholesomeness and quality of our food?
The eagerness of the present Administration to listen to industry is clearly illustrated by an examination of the regulations governing animal processing plants. The Labour Government proposed a public licensing system for animal food protein processing plants, which would have clearly maintained certain laid-down hygiene


standards. However, when the Conservative Government came to office, they changed the whole tenor of the regulations and allowed the industry
to determine how best to produce a high quality product".
The chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers Association, John Field, blew the gaff when he said:
there was a change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing.
I do not need to expand on that.
The Government have repeatedly boasted of their policy to reduce public expenditure, to sweep away regulations and controls and to cut the number of public servants, whom they regard as unproductive and having no place in the Prime Minister's brave new Britain. The blatant irresponsibility of such an approach is seen most vividly in food safety, where its results have been literally deadly. Many of our citizens have died as a result of the Government's failure to protect our food adequately.
The Government have deliberately reversed the policies developed over centuries and abrogated their responsibility to protect the consumer. We call upon them today to reverse their deadly policy; until they do that, they stand condemned of failing to protect the British people.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I must at once apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who had been greatly looking forward to the debate. Unfortunately, as the House knows, he was taken ill last night while negotiating for Britain in Brussels. He is making a swift recovery and will be back at work here very soon. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him well, and I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his kind opening remarks.
The shells, if that is what they were, fired by the hon. Member for South Shields missed their mark. Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my right hon. Friend the present Minister, the Ministry has changed dramatically in recent years. The general allegations made against it are not only way out of date but grossly misleading. To claim that Britain's entire food industry, from the field to the table, is in disarray, and that the entire population must go in fear of almost every item of food on the shelves is a travesty of the truth.
Britain's food industry is not a failure; it is an outstanding success story. Its productivity, its export performance and its range of goods are evidence of that; so is our retail sector, which is envied throughout the world. The industry employs more than 3 million people throughout the country. Does anyone really believe that if the industry and the Government had not paid attention to safety and quality, such achievements would have been possible?
The Labour party is out of touch with the views of consumers and taxpayers, and it admitted as much in the Tribune article of 11 November to which I have already referred. Opposition Members have shown a lack of understanding of, and interest in, the food chain. Since 1979 they have not selected a single Supply day subject directly related to food and consumers. That omission is due either to their satisfaction with our policies or to their neglect of the issue.
Consumers under this Government have much more variety of food on supermarket shelves, better value for money than in the 1970s and improved diet and standard of nutrition. The free market fostered by this Government is working in the interests of all consumers, who are getting a better deal from the food and agriculture industry than ever before. The far-reaching reforms of the common agricultural policy initiated in Brussels during the past few years, which are of direct benefit to consumers, are largely due to the pressure from Britain. For many years it has been a lone battle. It has been the firm voices of this Government and of the past two Conservative Ministers which have spoken up on behalf of consumers in Brussels. My right hon. Friend has raised the interests of consumers and the need to allow market forces to play a greater role in food and farming—

Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will the Minister explain how the common agricultural policy works in favour of market forces?

Mr. Ryder: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what we have done. Since the February Council of last year and the decisions that were taken largely as a result of British Government pressure, we have saved consumers hundreds of millions of pounds. I only wish that other European Ministers were as conscious of consumers as is my right hon. Friend—and as he will continue to be when he gets back.

Mr. Curry: Does my hon. Friend recall that, a long time ago when there was a Labour Minister for Agnculture, Fisheries and Food, there was a series of astronomical average farm price rises in Brussels, which was agreed by a Labour Minister? It was necessitated by high levels of inflation, above all in the United Kingdom, which meant that neither producers nor consumers benefited.

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is correct. I shall leave references to the Labour party's record on prices and consumers in the 1970s to my able and talented Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who will wind up the debate later.
My right hon. Friend's first speech of the year in Oxford was a hard-hitting message to the food and farming industry, which emphasised the need for farmers to respond to the market place and satisfy the demand of consumers. That is a message that he has given all the time he has been in the Ministry.
He also reinforced his views on food safety in the same speech:
Certainly, as far as my own department is concerned, we have for a long time put considerable effort into ensuring that food is as safe as it can possibly be and I can assure you that this will continue to be a high priority area of the Ministry's work.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister advise the House of the preparations which the Ministry has undertaken to recognise the implications of the European hygiene standards which will be implemented by 1992? They will include, for example, the full-time employment of veterinary surgeons within abattoirs. Will he look at the implications of that not just for veterinary medicine but for all other aspects of food hygiene?

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Lady is right. This matter is being discussed within the Commission, as she may know. It is something to which we shall be returning.
Those people who suggest that my right hon. Friend is in the hands of farmers should have read recent press statements. A recent article in a farming magazine stated:
What a pity that the people who have recently accused the Minister of Agriculture of being in the NFU's pocket weren't present at the Oxford Farming Conference. I have never heard a Minister spell out a tougher message than Mr. MacGregor did amid the Dreaming Spires.
My right hon. Friend is in nobody's pocket—neither farmers, food manufacturers or retailers. He has struck a careful balance between the interests of consumers, the need to protect our countryside, the need of farmers and food businesses to make profit and the concerns of taxpayers over how their money is spent. The Government believe that consumers and taxpayers are the major beneficiaries of the reform of the CAP instigated by this Government.
Action taken by the Government in Brussels has reduced the surpluses—the mountains are vanishing because of decisions taken at our instigation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ryder: I must apologise to my hon. Friend, but I shall not give way.
Our action has reduced the burden on taxpayers—the cost of the CAP is now under control. The reform of the CAP has kept the rises in food prices below the rate of inflation—in contrast to the Labour party when it was in power. It has brought greater realism to the CAP, allowing a greater role for market forces and this provided a stable basis on which the food and agriculture industry can prosper in the 1990s.
Consumers, thanks to the success of this Government's economic policies, have an improving standard of living and can buy food of better quality than ever before. The prosperity which this Government have brought to the United Kingdom economy is, more than anything, responsible for the improved living standards of the vast majority of the population. That has been achieved without weakening the surveillance of the food industry. Indeed, the food law standards, to which I shall be referring later, are increasing and consumers are better protected than ever before.
Consumers have a much wider choice on the supermarket shelves than ever before. In response to the market policies of this Government, the food industry has shown great ingenuity as it satisfies consumer demand. New products and foods are now available. [Interruption.]
Consumers are better off, with rising real incomes and lower inflation. Unlike the 1970s, when Labour was in office and prices were out of control, consumers are benefiting from low food price inflation and, as their real incomes rise, they are able to spend a lower proportion of their incomes on basic foods and more on other things. Economic prosperity has given them the freedom to choose.
From a sedentary position, hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have been asking about food surveillance, and safety, and I shall deal with it now.
Consumers are better protected than ever before by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientists. We employ more food scientists now than were employed

under the Labour Government. The hon. Member for South Shields appeared to imply that the number of food scientists that we are employing is lower.

Dr. David Clark: I did not.

Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman did not imply that, I shall, of course, withdraw it. However, we employ more food scientists now than did the Labour Government. They are better equipped than they have ever been, with more sophisticated techniques. They are making sure that the food we eat is as safe as possible, and they are admired and respected throughout the world.
Consumers, as well as producers, have benefited from the emphasis which we have placed on animal health. Major efforts have been put into protecting animal health in the United Kingdom. The Ministry has raised the health status of livestock, so that overseas markets, which are closed to other countries, are open to our producers.
This Government have always believed in the right of consumers to good-quality, nourishing food at affordable prices. Food law's essential purpose is to achieve consumer protection in areas of fraud, misleading labelling and food safety.
The Food Acts were consolidated by this Conservative Government in 1984 and followed major Conservative Food Acts of 1938 and 1955. They made it an offence to render any food for sale injurious to health or to sell—or offer for sale—food unfit for human consumption. The Government announced in October 1987–13 to 14 months ago—but only after consulting consumer organisations, that we would be further updating food legislation. Preparations for the Bill are well advanced. I have met the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council, and our officials meet consumer organisations regularly or whenever they are asked to do so. Our door is always open to the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council.
There are countless examples when we have responded positively to consumer representations. We insisted on rejecting the use of clouding agents in soft drinks. We pressed ahead with our nutrition labelling, and we are introducing alcohol strength labelling in the face of industry opposition.
Among issues being discussed with consumers are provisions for the proper evaluation and control of technological developments with food and food packaging materials which could pose hazards for consumers. The Food Bill that we are preparing to bring before Parliament will be the biggest since 1938, and we began the preparation of that Bill in October 1987.
Those hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench have been rightly muttering that we must devote ourselves during the debate not only to food safety but to food surveillance. It is food surveillance to which I now turn.
There are 10 working parties covering all aspects of food safety that fall within our area of responsibility. Working parties cover additives, nutrients and chemical contaminants in the diet. Their work, carried out by scientists and academics of the highest calibre, is objective and up-to-date. Evidence is assessed on contaminants, residues and naturally occurring toxins. The evidence is published with expert comment on each of the subjects


dealt with by the working parties. Recent reports include those on colours in food, nitrates and plasticisers and more are in the pipeline.

Mr. John Home-Robertson: What about Chernobyl?

Mr. Ryder: For the benefit of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home-Robertson), in order to overcome any doubts I have some of the reports with me. Here are some of them. The survey of mycotoxins in the United Kingdom—that report was published and the Government acted upon it; a survey of lead in food—we published it and the Government acted on it; the surveillance of food contamination in the United Kingdom—the report was published and the Government acted on it.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ryder: No, I shall not give way.
There is full public consultation before Ministers make new regulations. Reports of the Government's advisory committees are, as the hon. Member for South Shields knows, published and comments invited on them from consumer bodies. At the core of our work for consumers is the Food Advisory Committee to which the hon. Member for South Shields alluded. That is a vital body, respected all over Europe, which includes eminent scientists and academics, as well as consumer representatives.

Dr. David Clark: There is only one.

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman also said that in his speech, but let me put him right. I have a list of the people who sit on that committee and I shall read out the names of the five people who are either representatives of consumers or consumer enforcement bodies. They are Dr. Margaret Ashwell, Mr. Tony Harrison, Mr. Roger Manley, Miss Patricia Mann and Mrs. Anne Stamper. They are all representatives of consumer bodies or consumer enforcement authorities and there are five of them, not one.

Dr. David Clark: Would the Minister also like to advise the House by which other bodies those people are paid? I understand that Dr. Margaret Ashwell is now employed by an industry-funded body. All the other people apart from one, have links with the food industry.

Mr. Ryder: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point out precisely where those Committee members work. Dr. Margaret Ashwell is an independent consultant on food nutrition, Mr. Tony Harrison is chief scientific adviser, public analyst and official agricultural analyst to Avon county council, Mr. Roger Manley is director of trading standards for Cheshire county council, Miss Patrica Mann is head of external affairs for J. Walter Thompson and Mrs. Anne Stamper—in deference to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I will not describe her as a "chairman"—is the chair of education for the National Federation of Women's Institutes and a lecturer in biology at Lewes technical college. No one can tell me that those five people, men and women of the highest calibre, do not represent the interests of the consumer on the food advisory committee.
I will take this opportunity to explain some of the work undertaken by the committee on behalf of consumers. Its

advice on additives is based on the following criteria—that they are of demonstrable need, are not prejudicial to health, do not affect nutritive value, are used only minimally and are properly labelled. Therefore I yield to no one, least of all the hon. Member for South Shields, in my belief that the advisory committee, chaired by the vice-chancellor of Reading university, protects consumers as its number one priority.
I am glad to report that the United Kingdom concept of need, as outlined and pursued by the food advisory committee, has been adopted by the European Community Commission and now forms part of EC as well as our legislation. All the reports of the Government's advisory committees, including the food advisory committee, are published.
I know that pesticides are a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. My Department is one of six Government Departments that must approve any new pesticides before they can be sold. Ministers are advised by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides before any approval, review or revocation of a pesticidal substance. The approval system is backed up by an intensive system of monitoring residues by the working party on pesticide residues at a cost of nearly £1 million per annum to the taxpayer.
At the other end of the food chain, food labelling law is designed to assist consumers to make an informed choice at the time of purchase. Food labels must detail the name or description of the food, an ingredients list, date of minimum durability—

Mr. Martlew: This is boring.

Mr. Ryder: It may be boring to the hon. Gentleman, but it is certainly not boring to consumers.

Mr. Martlew: rose—

Mr. Ryder: No I will not give way.
The label must also detail the name and address of the responsible packer or seller. In addition, and where appropriate, details of storage instruction, instructions for use and place of origin must be given. Food labelling, which is a matter of great concern to consumers, is kept under regular review by my Department. We have issued a booklet entitled "Look at the Label". Half a million copies have been distributed and another edition will be published shortly.
Sticking closely to the question of consumer information, which is part of the motion before the House today, it is generally recognised that food hygiene is of paramount importance in reducing food poisoning risks. The Government are about to launch a food hygiene education programme aimed at consumers. Of course, additives and processing techniques should not be used to conceal inadequate hygiene, and food manufacturers must comply with good manufacturing practices; otherwise they face the sanction of the law.

Mr. Ron Davies: Under what law?

Mr. Ryder: They can be sanctioned under the Food Act 1984.
It is nearly 10 years since we took office and, during that time, we have initiated at least 20 specific debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee that have directly affected food and the consumer. I am not counting among that number the regular agriculture, fisheries and food


debates. The subjects of those 20 debates have ranged from misleading labelling to pesticide residues. How does our figure of 20 debates compare with Opposition-instigated debates about food and consumers? I have already pointed out that, since 1979, no Supply day has been given up by the Opposition to discuss those matters. What audacity the Opposition have to appropriate consumerism as their own creed.
There can only be two reasons for the Opposition's neglect of food and consumers—either their satisfaction with our policies of the last decade or their lack of interest in the subject. [Interruption.] Opposition spokesmen may protest, but is it contentment or lack of interest? I am a fair-minded fellow and I offer them the benefit of the doubt. I ascribe the Opposition's silence to contentment and their protests to street theatre.
The truth is that while the Labour party dabbles with the rhetoric of opposition, the Government grapple with the problems, secure the solutions and, as I have explained, act on them.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: First, I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the Parliamentary Secretary in wishing a speedy recovery to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He is suffering from a nasty illness and we wish him well and a speedy return to the House. Having listened to a speech of utter complacency from the Parliamentary Secretary, the sooner the Minister comes back to the House the better.
I shall first deal with the Parliamentary Secretary's allegation that the Opposition have taken too little interest in food. I agree with him. I do not believe that we have taken nearly enough interest in this matter, but I remind him that we are not the Government. He said that during the past 10 years we have not instigated any Supply day debate on food. That may be true, but we have instigated one today because there is a great deal of public concern—it has increased since Christmas—about food handling. Any Opposition will use their Supply days to bring public concern to the attention of the House. That is why my hon. Friend tabled today's motion. I am afraid, however, that public concern will not be assuaged by the complacent speech by the Parliamentary Secretary.
If proof were needed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is so producer-oriented that it cannot adequately look after consumers, surely the Christmas pantomime about eggs put the matter beyond doubt. Let us reflect on what happened at Christmas and what the Ministry did only a few weeks ago. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) did her job. I did not give her notice that I would refer to her, but I shall say nothing disparaging about her. In fact, I thought that she would be present and I am astonished that she is not in her place during a debate dealing directly with the matters that led to her resignation as a Minister.
As a Minister for health the hon. Lady warned the public about a potential health hazard. That warning had already been given to hospitals. As a result of what the hon. Lady said, there was sheer panic in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government threw £19 million at egg producers as compensation for loss of business. They did not link that money with research into

salmonella, improving premises or making the flocks free of salmonella; they simply compensated the industry for loss of orders.
The Ministry is producer-oriented. It is unconcerned with consumers and quite desperately concerned not to offend Government supporters in the egg-producing industry. The only person to emerge with any credit was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, who was mocked by the media and jeered at and scorned by Conservative Members—and, I am ashamed to say, by some Opposition Members—for doing her job. It is a pity that she was forced to resign for doing the very job that the Government appointed her to do.
The Minister keeps promising us that there will be a massive Food Act. The last basic Food Act was in 1955. The regulations under which most inspections take place were made in 1970. I am an honorary vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. That institution has been pressing the Government for food regulations and for a food Act for more than five years. When the Minister was talking about the various institutions and consumer organisations with which his Department had been in contact, I noticed that he did not mention the front line—the environmental health officers who have to implement the legislation. When the Minister talked about how much research had been done and how many papers had been produced, it was as if, in the face of a crime wave, the Home Secretary were saying how many academics were studying criminology. We do not need academics, we need people in the front line forcing a modern Act and modern regulations.
Let us look back to 1970 when the regulations came into force. Microwave ovens were unknown, except possibly by NASA in America. In 1970 the whole principle of microwave ovens was unknown. Now they are commonplace. Microwave ovens can be dangerous because sometimes they merely reheat food and do not kill germs within that food. In 1970 there was not such an enormous number of freezer shops. Now, in every high street there are freezer shops and there are freezer stores in every supermarket. That was not so in 1970 when the regulations were made.
There has also been a massive increase in the number of take-away food outlets since 1970. In 1970, who would have dreamt of going to Marks and Spencer for a pack of sandwiches or a salad? I say nothing about the standards of Marks and Spencer which are probably the highest in the world, but the other side of the coin is that the local garage on the street corner may sell sandwiches which are being handled by someone with no knowledge whatsoever of food and more than likely the sandwiches have been in the window in the broiling sun before being sold and consumed.
The people who have to deal with those circumstances and police those regulations are the environmental health officers, so we should consider their numbers and recruitment. There is an acute shortage of environmental health officers. Out of nearly 6,000 officers in the United Kingdom there is a shortage of some 430. That is a 4…5 per cent. shortage throughout the country, and here in London—where we read only last week that the rat population makes it almost the rat capital of the world—there is a shortage of nearly 9 per cent.
The Government have done nothing to alleviate that problem. They have been a hindrance squeezing local authorities until the pips squeak so that they have difficulty


in paying for more public health inspectors and environmental health inspectors who are desperately needed at present. They have even closed the course at Aston and Bristol polytechnics, thereby reducing the number of recruits by 60 per year. In that profession, there is 100 per cent. certainty of employment once students have completed and passed the course, but the Government have reduced the number of students on those courses.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that the number of cases of food poisoning now stands at some 40,000. In 1982 the figure was about 14,000 or 15,000. That increase is in direct proportion to the shortage of public health inspectors. If one looks at the graph the parallel is clear.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is the right hon. Gentleman talking about the number of reported cases of food poisoning or the number of actual cases? Does he agree that, because of greater public awareness of the problems of food poisoning, perhaps more cases have been reported than previously?

Mr. Oakes: I do not think that is so. I am talking about the number of reported cases, but I do not think that it is a question of people not reporting cases. I am not certain, but I think that when someone goes to a doctor for treatment for food poisoning, the doctor is under a duty to report that case to the public health inspectors. However, I am quite certain that the incidence of food poisoning in this country has increased, and the public is well aware of that increase.
There is an acute need to do something about that, not to set up more academic bodies to consider various matters, but to produce legislation that is modern and up-to-date and that takes into account modern technology and the state of the market at present, and as it is likely to be in future. The Minister should direct his attention to that instead of paying…19 million to compensate egg producers because of a remark by one of his ministerial colleagues.
In the light of that, is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the correct Department to administer food? It has held that responsibility for a long time, but I repeat that it is a producer-oriented Department. The institution to which I referred wants a separate Ministry for Food. I do not agree with that; I do not think that the subject merits a separate Ministry with all the panoply of a Department of State.
Should the responsibility for food go to the Department of Health? At first sight there is a case for that, especially as the Department of Health is no longer linked to the Department of Social Security. Diet and food, and food standards, involve health and preventive health, so it is important that the Department of Health looks after food rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Should the responsibility go to the Department of the Environment which looks after local authorities who employ the trading standards officers and the environmental health inspectors?

Mr. Marland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oakes: In a moment.
I am not sure about the Department of the Environment, because of its deplorable record on water authorities in the past few months. It also tends to be

producer-oriented rather than consumer-oriented. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) laughs, but the record of the Department of the Environment is deplorable, for example, in what it is allowing water authorities to do at present. It will get worse when the water industry is privatised.

Mr. Marland: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should also have a separate Department for looking after transport users, other than the Department of Transport? Possibly he could also outline to us what he would do with the users of energy. Would he have them looked after by the Department of Energy or would he like to have another Department for users of energy as well, to carry his theory to its logical conclusion?

Mr. Oakes: So often when one gives way one does so just when one is about to answer the question put by the hon. Member to whom one gives way. I do not think that the Department of the Environment would be suitable. To give MAFF its due, it is not the only producer-oriented Department—and this is the hon. Gentleman's point. I was a Minister at the Department of Energy which was dominated by three boards—gas, coal and electricity—not by consumers. The civil servants all knew people in the industry, there was a sort of incestuous relationship going on all the time and the consumer was forgotten. That does happen with Departments of State.
No, my solution is that we try a Department of Consumer Affairs again. We need to have it as a complete and separate Department of State. In 1974 the Labour Government made a very bungled and half-hearted attempt to set one up, but it failed because it had iao powers. Other Departments were very reluctant to hand over their powers to it, even though they did not want to do the work themselves. What I have in mind is a Department with a Cabinet Minister at the head, with a permanent secretary and fully staffed by civil servants who have the power to deal with all the different Ministries. It should have the responsibility for enforcing food regulations; it should deal with transport complaints; it should deal with energy consumers and telephone bills; and all the statutory bodies would be answerable to it.
The Government should look closely at this idea of a separate Department of consumer affairs. I can think of many of my hon. Friends who would make excellent Cabinet Ministers in charge of such a Department, but on the Government Benches I know of no one with the enthusiasm and determination to do such a job—except possibly the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) concerning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We hope that he will soon be back with us to debate these matters.
I wish first to declare an interest. I am an adviser to two sections of the food industry and worked in that industry for more than 20 years—my interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests—and I hope that I shall be able to deploy some of my experience of the food industry to effect this afternoon. I would like to record my very high opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over a long period of time for the way in which it has


protected consumers. I have always regarded MAFF, as it is known to everyone in the industry, as one of the best Departments of State. It is well run and well staffed, and its staff know what they are doing on agricultural, food and fisheries policy.
I therefore completely reject the terms of the Opposition motion. I simply do not believe that there is any good evidence—nor has any been adduced this afternoon.—to condemn MAFF, in the terms of the motion, for its failure to protect the consumer. I will demonstrate to the House why I believe this to be so.
MAFF is responsible for food and safety surveillance. The provisions of the various Food Acts require that all food should be safe and that consumers should not be misled. For example, the Acts' general provisions make it an offence either to use any substance during the preparation of food so as to render it injurious to health or to sell food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the consumer. Food and Health Ministers are jointly responsible for deciding what substances are allowed in the nation's food and rely on the independent advice of distinguished experts, notably those who serve on the Food Advisory Committee and on the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, known affectionately as "COT".
All these committees are independent of Government, and I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Halton attempted this afternoon to insinuate that in some way the membership of these committees was not adequate to protect the consumers, or, alternatively, that those people who serve on the committees who represent the consumers had some outside interest which would prevent them from exercising their independence. I know full well, as does the whole food industry, that that simply is not true. The committees are of the highest possible standard. Their members are independent. Their decisions are recognised throughout the industry as capable of being fully respected, and such decisions have always been acted on promptly. So let us get out of the way once and for all any suggestion that the committees are not independent or that their members are somehow biased.

Dr. David Clark: Could I just quote "Food Policy and the Consumer", produced by the National Consumer Council? On page 19 it says:
The Food Advisory Committee has itself no independent powers. It can only respond to specific instructions from Ministers
Those are the words of the Government's own National Consumer Council.

Mr. Shersby: What it does not say is that the advice given by the various committees is not independent. It is independent, and it is the duty of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to refer to the Food Advisory Committee matters of importance that affect the food industry, the consumer and the whole food chain.

Sir Richard Body: The first name on the list of members is that of Dr. Albury. I well remember being asked about a year ago to be a presenter on a television documentary programme, and she was one of those that I had to interview. Before I did so, I discovered that she had telephoned the Ministry of Agriculture to find out what she ought to say. Then, after

asking her a few questions, I discovered that she earned her living by contracting for food manufacturers. For those two reasons, she did not seem very independent.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend makes that point; doubtless my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to it later. It is quite right and proper for members of a committee of that kind to know the Ministry's view as well as their own. But there has been an attempt, not by the right hon. Member for Halton but by those outside the House who have written books from time to time, to imply that, because the proceedings of those committees are confidential, they are in some way biased. I hope that the House will accept today that that is not the case.
I would like to quote briefly a couple of examples of consumer protection. One of the problems concerning MAFF and consumers is that of bovine spongiform encephalopathy:MAFF has acted promptly to deal with this new cattle disease. In April last year the Government set up an expert working party to examine all aspects of the disease, including its implications for human health and, although the working party found no evidence of risks to human beings, it recommended that affected cattle and their milk be destroyed—another example of quick action taken by MAFF.
A major research programme has examined practical ways of reducing pesticide input into the environment, something of vital concern to consumers. Another matter which I know about from personal experience is the question of wrapping and packaging materials. Here again, as a result of a report of a working party on vinyl chloride, the level of vinyl chloride monomer transferred to food from PVC packaging materials has decreased substantially. That is very important. I can also tell the House that, following consultation with MAFF, manufacturers have reformulated their products to reduce the levels of placticiser used in PVC and so keep the potential intake to a minimum. That is an important matter, which has been raised by consumer organisations and reported in the press and on radio and television. We see that MAFF is taking action.
The Minister referred to the review of the Food Act 1984. I know from personal experience that that review has been in preparation for several years and has required the most enormous amount of work by his Department and considerable consultation with consumers and the food industry.
We look forward to 1992 and what will happen over food safety. Britain's food standards are generally higher than those in any other European Community country. As a result, we are able to export large quantities of food, not only to other European countries but throughout the world.
An important matter in this context is food labelling and additives. MAFF has been at the forefront of the drive to ensure that food is labelled properly and that accurate information is provided to the consumer. As long ago as 1980, it issued about a million copies of a free booklet called "Look at the Label" which was designed to encourage consumers to look at labels to find out about the contents of what they were buying. All those changes give the lie to the suggestion that MAFF keeps the consumer in ignorance and protects the producer from change.
The United Kingdom has a restrictive view on the use of food additives. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister


and his colleagues approve an additive only if they are satisfied that it is necessary and safe. Some additives are necessary, and many of them are safe. The point made by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) was important. Food poisoning has been on the increase—at least, the number of reported cases of food poisoning—and that is a matter of great concern to consumers, the Ministry and the food industry.
In this country, as in any other civilised country, we must try to achieve a balance between the use of additives and preservatives, and having foods with no additives or preservatives. We all know that, if one tries to produce jam without its major constituent, preservative, it will go mouldy. Bread and many other products can easily go mouldy. The object of using additives and preservatives is to prevent that happening and to ensure that the consumer enjoys the advantage of having safe food at his or her disposal.
This afternoon we have discussed food intolerance in relation to additives. There is an excellent example of research, funded by the Ministry, into the study of the prevalence of food intolerance to food additives. MAFF is conducting that work, assisted by the initiative of the Food and Drink Federation, which takes a keen interest in that matter.
This afternoon's debate is a result of public concern over food safety. That concern has arisen because of the problem of salmonella and, more recently in the past few days, the problem of listeriosis monocytogenes.
There has been much debate in the House about salmonella and the infestation of chicken flocks and eggs, which I shall not expand on this afternoon. However, I shall speak about listeria monocytogenes. It is not new, but has been with us for more than 20 years. It is important to recognise that, since 1986, only four cases of listeria that is attributable to food consumption have been reported. That figure comes from a report from the public health laboratory. There are other ways in which listeria can infect a human body, but I am talking about those cases which are specifically attributable to food consumption. It is important to bear than in mind.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason why the figure is so low is that listeriosis is not a notifiable disease?

Mr. Shersby: I am not sure whether that is the reason. I am sure that the public health laboratory monitors those cases of food infection extremely carefully. Notification may assist in dealing with other cases. The other day, I heard an obstetrician talking about this problem and about the number of cases that he had encountered. It may be that notification will be a valuable way of drawing attention to that aspect of the problem.
As a result of the recent outbreaks of salmonella and listeria, there has been some pressure for the transfer of the responsibility for food safety to the Department of Health. It is argued that MAFF cannot protect the consumer while at the same time acting as the sponsoring Ministry for the food industry and farmers. Is that true? MAFF argues that transferring the responsibility would break the chain of responsibility for the production and safety of food from the farm to the consumer. Some consumer organisations and health pressure groups argue that, as the Department

of Health is responsible for the provision of health care, it should be responsible for food safety. There is, perhaps, some right on both sides.
While MAFF is responsible for everything from the short tail docking of sheep to changes in controls on pesticides, it is not responsible for regulations governing the manufacture and storage of cook-chill foods. I draw the Minister's attention to a strange sequence of events. Last week, I tabled three parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They dealt with regulations about good practice in the manufacture of cook-chill foods, regulations governing the temperature at which such foods are stored, with any plans that he might have to ensure that instructions about refrigeration and storage on containers of cook-chill products were sufficiently clear.
To my intense surprise, all three questions were transferred to the Department of Health. Those were priority written questions because I wanted the answers for this afternoon's debate. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health said that he would reply as soon as possible. That can only beg the question as to whether his Ministry has responsibility for food safety standards in food manufacture. I say that MAFF has that responsibility because it is responsible for the Food Act and is the food manufacturing industry's sponsoring Ministry.
According to the current list of ministerial responsibilities which was issued by the Cabinet Office last September, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is responsible for food policy, food standards and food science, yet important questions concerning food standards are transferred by his Department—by his parliamentary branch—to the Secretary of State for Health. Why? I hope that when he winds up tonight, my hon. Friend will tell us.
It is important that the post of the Minister responsible for food is clearly defined and carries sufficient weight and seniority within the Ministry. Food is one of three major areas of responsibility within MAFF. With due respect to the three Parliamentary Secretaries—my noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington and my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and for Mid-Norfolk—their responsibilities cover a wide range of topics.
Let us take food safety as an example. My noble Friend is responsible for cereals, sugars, oils, fats, potatoes, processed fruits and vegetables, tropical foods, horticulture, plant health, plant varieties, seeds and pesticides, all of which have an important bearing on food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley deals with meat, milk and poultry products, and animal health and welfare. His responsibilities also include eggs, chickens and milk, to which is linked cheese made from pasteurised or non-pasteurised milk. Of course, that all relates to the current concern about, for example, listeria.
Then we have the third Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, who deals with food policy, food standards and, most important, food science. But my hon. Friend also has to deal with alcoholic drinks and the countryside. In effect we have three Ministers of Food; all of them do a first-class job and are much admired for it. But we have no Minister of State in MAFF. Why? In the light of the events of recent weeks, should there not be one senior Minister in overall charge of food policy, food standards and food science? We cannot reasonably expect my right hon. Friend the


Minister of Agriculture who has overall responsibility for the Department, including agricultural support policy, the European Community, price fixing and all the rest of it, to have the necessary hands-on, day-to-day responsibility for dealing with all these other important but less dramatic matters.
In comparison with the structure of MAFF, in the Department of Health there is a Minister of State who is designated Minister of State for Health, and who is responsible for preventive health care, including drugs, alcohol abuse, and so on. Neither the Secretary of State for Health nor the Minister of State for Health is responsible for food policy or food manufacturing standards. Yet it is to them that my questions on these matters have been referred.
One of the best answers to the problems that we face today is to improve our presentation and to have a senior Minister of State for food, responsible for food policy, food standards and food science. Such a Minister might have the benefit of an agency which could look after those interests and advise him. When my hon. Friend next talks to his right hon. Friend about these matters, he should ask him to consider the way in which the responsibilities are divided and to consider whether a Parliamentary Secretary be promoted.
Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend of the words of one of his distinguished predecessors, Lord Woolton. When Lord Wootton spoke, everyone knew that the Minister of Food had spoken. His word went throughout the length and breadth of the land. All of us appreciated what he had to say; he was a truly great man. From the way my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk handled the debate this afternoon, there is a fair chance that he may follow in Lord Woolton's footsteps.
Let us improve our presentation so that the understandable concern of consumers can be assuaged. We should have a Minister of Food who is responsible for food safety and who will be able to ensure, as the Minister of Agriculture has done for many years, that the standards of food production are as high as possible.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I first associate my colleagues in the Social and Liberal Democrats with the good wishes expressed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? We share the hope expressed in the House that his current indisposition will soon be behind him and that he is well on the way to full recovery so that he may return to the Dispatch Box to discuss agriculture matters with us.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the structure of food policing policy, if I may call it that. Although I agree with the sentiments behind the Labour decision to call for the debate today, I cannot fully endorse, and certainly will not support in the Lobby, the blanket condemnation in the Opposition motion. At the same time, the Minister's account of the state of the art was rather too complacent and self-congratulatory. If someone were not aware of the background over the past few months, his epitaph on the Minister's speech might be, "Problem? What problem?" We had a self-assured performance, which one would expect from the Minister,

but it was just a little complacent on the details of policy and its implementation. On that basis I will not support the Government's amendment.
To go back to first principles, running through the debate and some of the criticisms which the Labour and Conservative parties exchanged on the matter is a false dichotomy. At times we overlook the fact that, while farmers are producers, they have a strong vested interest in the highest standards which consumers want because they themselves are consumers. If farmers cannot contribute to the United Kingdom food chain in a way which reassures and gives the public the strongest confidence in the products which they are invited to purchase, the farmers will suffer in immediate financial terms and also because their households and families will be open to exactly the same dangers which we wish to see averted for consumers in general. There is a false dichotomy in suggesting that the two sectors are irreconcilable and cannot recognise shared interests.

Mr. Ron Davies: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was precisely the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made at the beginning of his speech? He made it clear that there was a community of interest between food producers and consumers.

Mr. Kennedy: I accept that the hon. Gentleman made that point. I simply underscore the point in commenting on it.
Equally, if we are in favour, as I think both Government and Opposition are, of effective consumerism, that must surely mean the public having as much information as possible to make rational, sensible and well-informed choices. That is why Britain, although lagging behind North America in consumerism, as in so many other things, is moving radically in the same way in putting much greater emphasis on labelling, on the detailing of additives used food and so on. That is sensible. It is hardly surprising and it is a trend which is broadly welcomed.
The last principle, which again must never be overlooked, is that since the second world war it has been the role of the Minister of Agriculture and a fundamentally important objective for any Government to secure a position in United Kingdom agriculture which does not result in food shortages for the consumer. That policy has been pursued successfully for over 40 years. Even though we have had a legitimate concern about the problems of the past few months, we should never lose sight of the public disturbance which would result if we ever had to go back to the food shortages or the rationing of 40 years ago. Those are the shared principles upon which any policy should be based.
In regard to surpluses, one need not look to many sectors, if any, of United Kingdom domestic production for any surpluses which are accumulating within the European Community. We took steps to reduce our share of the over-production of milk within the Community.
The Minister referred to the speech by his right hon. Friend in Oxford recently. I worry slightly about us becoming more Thatcherite, as is suggested in some quarters, in our attitude to agriculture. When the Minister of Agriculture was speaking in Oxford, he told farmers that they should no longer see themselves as food producers but, to quote his phrase, as "landscape


entrepreneurs". His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales would probably endorse that, but I do not believe that it is quite what the Minister had in mind. Landscape entrepreneurial activity is all very well, but another farmer who was at that gathering, Mr. Oliver Walston, from East Anglia—he will not be unknown to the Ministry—has commented that free trade— [Interruption.] I no longer answer for the Social Democrats, but for the Social and Liberal Democrats. I am answerable for the official but not the provisional wing.
If I may quote the poor man, who should not be dragged into that family concern, he told the conference that free trade would leave
not a single Scottish crofter, the Lake District a wilderness, and the hillsides of Wales without a sheep or cow.
I hope therefore that the Ministry, and the Government in general will bear in mind those very important points when considering the broad policy towards the changing nature of agriculture in Britain.
As the hon. Member for Uxbridge has suggested, there is something of an in-built institutional conflict in MAFF, between the support of agricultural interests, of farmers and food, and its policing role to ensure public safety in food standards.
Equally, if one considers the Department of Health, I would have been interested to hear a Health Minister respond to the debate because it would have shown the degree of consistency or co-ordination within the Government. Although the Department of Health must act where there is any potential threat to the consumer, I understand that with regard to food production, the Department of Health must first persuade MAFF of any potential or actual threat.
There is therefore a case in the longer term for looking at the anomalies that that position creates, although in the short term I want to speak in support of MAFF. Indeed, if the Government are reviewing the position, as Whitehall rumours suggest they are, as reported in the press, there might be considerable merit in moving towards an American-style Food and Drugs Administration. In other words, there would be a Government-funded, yet independent, watchdog organisation. That is not a million miles removed from what the hon. Member for Uxbridge was alluding to earlier.
In the shorter term, with difficulties with salmonella and listeria, which have dominated the headlines, and the Select Committee on Agriculture's inquiry into these events, the clear message coming through is that the ?32 million cut back in MAFF over five years and the effect of that on its research and development, coupled with the scientific importance of that research and development, cannot be seen in isolation from the difficulties that have been encountered recently. The hon. Gentleman correctly detailed some of the scientific reductions which have taken place, and are planned in the future. Surely they can only reduce the ability of the Department to carry out the very statutory obligations that it is supposed to uphold.
We await with interest the Department's proposed Food Bill, which is due in the next year or so. It is also worth looking at the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and the Food and Drugs (Milk) Act 1970, to which the Minister referred in his speech. Let us hope that the Bill being drawn up in the Department will seek to deal with some of the omissions. For example, many foods are excluded from any refrigeration requirements, including butter and cheese, uncooked bacon and ham, cakes and

pastries. The temperature levels for refrigerating foods are too high. While the Government recommend that at home people should keep pre-cooked meals at a temperature of less than 5 deg centrigrade, the regulations set the level at 10 deg centigrade. Environmental health officers think that that is too high.
Any food that is expected to be sold within four hours of a shop opening for business does not have to be kept in a refrigerator. A shopkeeper needs to claim only that the item is expected to be sold within that time to avoid the refrigeration requirements.
There are no specific regulations about staff training or good practice, to which the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred in his speech. Given the proliferation of available outlets for fast foods, and modern food technology and the different types of food that are available to the consumer, that omission must be dealt with.
Under the Food Act 1984, there is no statutory obligation, only an implied one, for environmental health officers to inspect all the food processing, retailing and eating places in their areas. In a positive spirit, I hope that when the Government review this state of affairs, these considerations will be central to the concerns that they seek to address, as well as the omissions that they seek to redress.

Mr. Michael Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The thrust of his argument so far suggests that only Ministries have the ability to impose standards. Does he agree that retailers and supermarkets in this country, with their tight specifications and emphasis on hygiene—addressing the very points that he has raised about correct display of foods—are making a major contribution to the correct handling of food in this country?

Mr. Kennedy: I would not deny that at all. But if I may contrast that with the City of London, which is another area at times seen to be close to the hearts—not the pockets—of the Conservative party, the case for self-regulation is not persuasive or convincing.
Although I am not casting aspersions on the retail trade in this country—its standards are among the highest anywhere in the world—it is always important, indeed imperative, for consumers to have at least the backstop of legislative enforcement. So I favour both the carrot and the stick, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to view it in that way.
Equally, with regard to environmental health, I emphasise the points made earlier about cutbacks to local authorities. At the week-end, Mr. Ainslie Bazely, the head of environmental health services in the London borough of Southwark was quoted inThe Observeras pointing out the great problems that are being encountered. I do not believe that the position in Southwark is essentially different from what is happening around the country in terms of the shortage of people to fill environmental health positions. The number of vacancies for local authority environmental health officers has risen steadily from 135 in 1981 to 430 last year, out of a total of 6,000, which I assume to be for England and Wales. That vacancy level represents a 4…5 per cent. shortage outside London and a 9 per cent. shortage in London. That, too, must be an area to address if we are to overcome some of the difficulties that have been encountered in recent times.
In passing, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for bringing to my attention at the start of the debate the need to give greater emphasis within our veterinary schools to the training of vets in food hygiene. The Riley report, which is being actively considered, concerns the rationalisation of provision of veterinary training centres and is liable to lead to a reduction of about 20 clinical teaching posts. Certainly, in a Scottish context, as the hon. Lady is anxious to have on the record, any move towards a single student centre or centre of excellence is bound to lead to the dismemberment of the Glasgow veterinary college school as it exists.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the majority of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies are concerned about the implications of the Riley report. The Secretary of State for Scotland today described it as a questionable report and said he would be discussing its contents with the principal of Glasgow university and other interested parties. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that MAFF has a responsibility to make recommendations to the University Grants Committee on food hygiene and training prior to the closing date of 31 March for submissions in response to the Riley report, particularly in the light of European legislation on food hygiene?

Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Lady and I hope that the Minister, when replying to the debate, will say whether MAFF intends to have input along those lines so that the issue is before the UGC when considering the possible rationalisation proposals. Judging from the public comments of the Secretary of State to which the hon. Lady referred, I am sure that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will want to be part of that process.
In the shorter term, we shall have to await the report of the Select Committee to judge recent events, particularly in regard to salmonella and listeria. I echo the disappointment that others have expressed—I never thought that I would be saying this in this Chamber—that we shall not hear the former junior Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), speak in this debate and that she is not likely to give evidence before the Select Committee.
It is uncharacteristic of her to remain silent on these matters. It is also somewhat shameful in a parliamentary sense, given the public importance that has been attached to the issue. After all, her comments in December led to great public attention being given to the subject, and then there was the parliamentary follow-up and scrutiny.
We must strengthen existing institutions in MAFF. We should not blind ourselves to possible institutional changes in the longer term, by which I mean not just action in the United Kingdom but action in concert with our European colleagues.
We find the blanket nature of the condemnation in the Labour motion such that we could not support it in the Lobby tonight. Nor do we feel, short as we are of the details of the Bill which the Government will be bringing forward and the Select Committee's report, and taking account of the tone, tenor and substance of the Minister's speech, that we could support the Government in the Lobby.

Sir Richard Body: In the belief that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was his party's official spokesman on agriculture, I was anxious to hear his views. But I am afraid that his speech left me in a state of fog. I only wish that he could speak as clearly and succinctly as the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I congratulate on an admirable speech.
I can only think of one argument in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as it is constituted and that is the Minister himself, and the sooner he is fit and back at work the better pleased I shall be.
The root of the trouble, to parody the words of Dean Acheson, is that the Department has lost its role of 40 years and has yet to find another. For over four decades it has had one paramount aim—to induce farmers to increase their output, then to increase it again and then yet again. That objective has overridden probably every other consideration, and the results have been magnificent.
Our cows now produce twice as much milk as they did when I went as a pupil on a dairy farm years ago. As for arable farming, the fields that I know best now yield four times more wheat that they did 40 years ago. These are amazing figures, and MAFF's leadership deserves to be congratulated on that technical achievement, as do the farmers who have been goaded into participating in the campaign. That success has been due to four factors. They are the use of nitrates, pesticides, antibiotics and hormones.

Mr. Michael Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that a crucial factor is simply breeding?

Sir Richard Body: Breeding what? We are now breeding wheat which can take up more nitrates. If we did not have the necessary understanding of nitrates, we would not be breeding some of the varieties of wheat that we are now using. In terms of livestock, we are breeding pigs and poultry which can respond to antibiotics in their fattening. So I regard breeding as subordinate to the four factors that I listed.
Unfortunately, the Ministry, so obsessed with this demand to increase output, has turned a blind eye to some of the hazards of those factors. This heralds a great danger and will make it that much more difficult for MAFF to discharge its other functions in future.
We have doubled time and again the use of nitrates, despite the serious evidence produced by the World Heath Organisation, despite experiments in the United States that have shown that 36 species of animals have died of cancer when given more than a certain level of nitrates, and despite the legislation that is now emerging from the European Community about the dangerous levels of nitrates in much of our water supply.
The same applies to the use of pesticides. Again, MAFF has turned a blind eye to much of what has gone on in the past, for many of the pesticides that we use on our farms today were approved years ago, when the standards of testing were abysmal compared with what they are today. Indeed, I doubt whether many of those pesticides would have been approved—this is not simply my view but that of scientists and toxicologists, who are better informed than—if they were resubmitted for testing today. And everything is covered with an appalling cloak of secrecy so


that the farmer, let alone the consumer, is not permitted to know the toxicological dangers of the pesticides being used.
In the livestock sector, the Ministry has been warned time and again by doctors of the dangers of using antibiotics as a growth stimulant as well as a precaution against the spread of disease on intensive farms. Even the Minister's advisers have warned that we cannot go on using them because the time will come when they will cease to be effective. Doctors have said that the use of some antibiotics is having an adverse effect on patients who, though ill, are unable to respond to antibiotic treatment.
I think that the Ministry's record on hormones is, I regret to say, abysmal and I am not sure that it is very much better at the moment. I am very disturbed, and I hope that the whole House will be disturbed at the way Monsanto Chemicals and other drug companies seem quite confident that hormones will be allowed in this country for the purpose of getting our cows to produce between 20 and 40 per cent. more milk. Some in the medical profession say that the hormones may not affect 99 out of 100 of us, perhaps not even 999 out of a thousand of us, but there will still be perhaps one out of a thousand whom these hormones will affect. They are disappointed that the Ministry of Agriculture is being so secretive about the tests being carried out and have expressed concern that the relationship between the drug companies and some of the Ministry officials has gone further than it really should, and I hope the Ministry understands this concern.
I believe that the Ministry is now in difficulties and I am not talking about the ministerial team; I am talking about those further down in the pyramid who have the very important task of making sure that our food is produced decently and well and is fit for all of us to eat. Having argued for so long, as they have that those four aids were necessary, and not only necessary but perfectly safe and that everyone could just forget about it because everyone in Whitehall knew best—that has been their attitude over and over again when people have questioned them—I do not believe that they can satisfactorily swallow their words and go along with the anxieties that are known in other parts of the world and are known to some extent in this country about those four aids which we in the farming community have had to use.
That is why I think that there has to be a major change and why I hope that MAFF will be slimmed down and that some of its functions relating to food, particularly the safety and hygiene of food, will be transferred to the Department of Health, where they belong.

Dr. Lewis Moonie (Kirkcaldy): I associate myself with the remarks about the Minister's absence. I sincerely hope he will be back with us quickly. While I was charitably hoping last night that the Minister's attack had not been serious, I was uncharitably hoping it might have been due to something he had eaten; but that does not appear to be the case.
I am a little surprised at the tone of injured innocence on the Government Benches today, with the notable exception of the last speaker, and the over-defensiveness of the response to this motion. I think they protest too much. We are questioning not the independence but the effectiveness of the bodies that they set up to monitor food.
We are questioning not the fact that the Ministry has not tried, but the fact that it has failed, and these are two totally different things.
If I had wanted to get a cheap laugh today I would have stood here and read out the amendment from the Order Paper. I notice they are described as
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Consumers.
That is a risible remark for you. Quite frankly, the amendment is laughable. It
commends the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on its achievements on behalf of consumers in the fields of food safety, food surveillance and consumer information which means they have wide variety of choice of wholesome foods at reasonable prices; commends its comprehensive response to the emergence of health risks
and so on.
Protecting the consumer? What of the tens of thousands who have suffered from food poisoning in the last year, or the many who have died? We have heard nothing from the Government side today about them. What way is that to protect the consumer? It is of small comfort to the people who have suffered as the result of the policies of this Government and their failure to act effectively.
Wholesome food? Are we referring to chickens perhaps, to eggs, to the burgers made from unmentionable slurries that are poured down people's throats, to the cotton-wool bread that they are forced to eat, to the salt and sugar laden convenience foods? "It is nothing to do with the Government," they cry. That is the level of intelligence of Conservative Back Benchers: "It is everybody's fault but ours."
The only hygiene, the only handwashing, that is going on is Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the whole issue on the Government Front Bench.[Interruption.] We treat the Government's claims with the contempt they deserve, as a notable misstatement of reality, worthy of a party led by someone who boasts of having cut her commercial teeth on learning how to inject air into whipped cream to make it appear to go further. That is the level of commitment to food from this Government.
Sadly, much of our modern diet is harmful to us, and it does the Government no credit that they have failed to admit it, particularly in the Minister's disgracefully complacent contribution to this debate.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Member give way?

Dr. Moonie: No, I will not.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Arrogant fellow!

Dr. Moonie: This is a serious debate. I do not think the hon. Members who have been trying to intervene raise its tone very well.
Let us consider first of all bacterial and viral contamination of food. The salmonella in chicken and eggs has been well described recently. They have been known to me, as a worker in preventive medicine, for well over 10 years, and nothing has been done about it over that period. Listeriosis likewise has been known for a long time to be a potential contaminant. Campylobacter infection in milk, sadly, is still prevalent. There are many other examples I could give, but I had better pass on.
Let us extend the analogy. Look at the controversy over aluminium so recently aired; the hormones in meat; the use of antibiotics, so eloquently referred to by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body)


particularly in view of the fact that he is a farmer; the artificial flavourings which are still used; tasteless, mass-produced, factory-farmed beasts, pigs, calves, or for that matter, salmon; the dangers to consumers from the cook-chill process which are only now being fully realised; the equal dangers from many of the fast foods, some of which I know have very high standards of hygiene, but many of which sadly do not. There has been a case in the press recently, but the list is endless.
Let us not forget that an ill-balanced diet also contributes to illness in this country, a diet far too high in fat and salt, lacking in fibre and over-dependent on refined carbohydrate.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Member give way?

Dr. Moonie: This is a major contributory factor to our disgraceful position as the country with the highest death rate in the world from heart disease. Well-documented changes to that diet have been recommended over the years, but sadly no action has been taken in the light of them. None of this need be, if we had a Government who acted effectively on the information which they have had for years because, after all, there should be only two principles guiding our actions: first, that we should eat a healthy and well-balanced diet; secondly, that our food should be free from harmful contaminants of any kind.
Sadly, none of the Deprtments responsible for this are up to the job. MAFF, or MAFFC, as we ought to call it now, is the farmer's friend and is not going to put the interests of consumers first. The Department of Health has failed to accept responsibility, with the notable exception of the sadly departed hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), because it is much given to exhortation rather than effective action.
I was reminded, when the Minister mentioned the education programme that he and his colleagues were going to bring in, of the old story of a former director of Action on Smoking and Health, who at a major meeting on the dangers of smoking listened to speaker after speaker extolling the virtues of health education. It was only after the meeting finished that he discovered that they were all from the tobcco industry.
Let me conclude by mentioning the Department of the Environment. No, I shall pass on. We have had enough jokes.
Let me briefly outline a few of the actions that we could and should be taking, all of which would be cost-effective and have beneficial results. First, we should seriously consider removing responsibility for the quality of food from a Department that has shown itself unfit for the job and create an effective alternative—a Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which could handle a far wider range of issues than hitherto, or a non-elected body with some statutory powers. We should at least consider that.
Secondly, we should accept, and say that we accept, sensible proposals on nutrition that have been made over the past three years, and produce plans, particularly to reduce the amount of fat in the national diet.
Thirdly, we should consider restoring the office of medical officer of health for every district, as recommended last year by the Acheson report, which would strengthen the medical officer's role in the control of infection and the environmental health officer's function.
They should be backed up in the courts. I accept that many Acts exist which, if properly implemented, would improve the quality of the food we eat, but repeated fines of £10 or so mean that people repeatedly contravene the law. That is not the way to improve matters.
Fourthly, we should remove Crown immunity from hospitals and from this place so that they too can be subjected to the same rigorous standards as commercial food outlets. I see no reason why that should not be the case. It would show that we paid more than lip service to the idea of improved food hygiene.
Fifthly, we should act ruthlessly to close down any producers who are shown to have sold a contaminated product until such time as they prove that their premises are free from infection and likely to remain so because of changes in practice.
Sixthly, we should restore the level of research and development, particularly in areas related to food hygiene, which, sadly, have been cut. The Government claim that new market research should be funded by the industry, but if we wait for that, we may have to wait a long time. We also need to take some action on clear labelling. I accept that food is labelled, but to the average person it is by no means clear what they are eating. A much simpler code would be far more effective. We should also urgently consider the role of irradiation to prevent the infection of meat.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Moonie: No; I have not given way to Conservative Members, so I shall not give way to my hon. Friends.
During the second world war, the people of Britain ate a healthy, well-balanced diet. That was apparent during the war and after in the number of deaths from heart disease. There is no doubt that we can achieve the same again. The Government have failed to protect the health and well being of our people. They have tried to do so, but they have failed. I hope that the new legislation will be effective.

Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) called for a healthy and balanced diet. One or two of my hon. Friends might observe that he is an ample example of consumer resistance to the best efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I must declare an interest as an adviser to a trade association and to certain companies which appear in the Register of Members' Interests.
The motion on today's Order Paper is pretty round in its condemnation of the Ministry of Agriculture. I recall what was happening 10 years ago in the Chamber. Probably only one third of my hon. Friends here today were present 10 years ago when we were in the middle of the winter of discontent. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was not right when he said that we had had 40 years of adequate food supplies in Britain. Ten years ago we had statements in the Chamber from the Labour Government on the shortages of sugar, salt, margarine, rice, coffee and lamb. It is pretty arrogant for the Labour party to suggest today that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is failing properly to protect consumers.
If the Ministry had failed, one yardstick of its failure might be its regular appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, on which I have sat for 10 years. We are used to seeing the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, but it is rare for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come before that Committee for having failed to meet the objectives laid down; that should be placed on the record.
I am going to Northampton market on Saturday 18 February. If anybody thinks that Northamptonshire's farmers, he they pig, beef or cereal farmers, will greet with open arms the suggestion that the Ministry of Agriculture is firmly in their pockets, they are wildly wrong. I expect to be given a rough time. I shall enjoy that, but the last thing that any of my farmers believe is that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in their pockets.
During the summer recess, I took the opportunity to go to the veterinary school at Weybridge. I was thoroughly reassured by the work being done in those laboratories and anyone who has a worry about what is being done in the veterinary world should visit Weybridge. I wonder how many hon. Members have ever done so. They might reasonably spend some time doing that.
I doubt whether any hon. Member who visits large manufacturing companies in the food processing industry either at the weekend or during the recess will find any that are not up to the highest standards, whether in terms of sampling or checking raw materials coming into Britain, or in the processing, testing, packaging or sampling of the products. The way in which the Ministry of Agriculture works with those companies is a safeguard for the consumer.
With the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I helped to set up the parliamentary Food and Health Forum so that we should have an opportunity to hear from interested outside bodies and colleagues their views on food and health matters. Bodies such as the London Food Commission may be highly critical of the Government, but anyone who does some research into that organisation will know that it is highly critical of western democracies and anything to do with the corporate state, or anything else. But the vast majority of organisations that are associate members of the Food and Health Forum recognise that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has played a major role in communicating with the consumer. They want more, but that is understandable.

Ms. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way. Mr. Deputy Speaker has appealed to us to be brief.
My hon. Friend the Minister outlined some of the Ministry's work. There is no doubt that the Food Advisory Committee is a major source of information and research in Britain. Last year, in a review of the use of colour in food, that committee recommended daily allowances based on the most stringent scientific evidence. It is not just Britain that follows those standards; they are likely to be followed throughout Europe and elsewhere. That is a measure of how the rest of the world recognises the Ministry's work as a reference manual.
Adverse comment has been made about the Ministry's inability to communicate with the consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the publication "Look at the Label" which was issued not last year or 18 months ago but 10 years ago, when the

Ministry of Agriculture issued well over 1 million copies. I invite hon. Members, after the debate, to buy some packaged food and to look at what is on the label. There is an ingredients list, which is especially important for those who may have a particular susceptibility to an element in the product. The dates of minimum durability and the name and address of the supplier are also displayed. Would that we could find that in other parts of the world, particularly in some of the continental countries, and that the Department of Health was as strict on generic medicines and parallel imports as MAFF is on food products.

Mr. Ron Davies: I would not normally interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but as he is proclaiming MAFF's readiness to open the books, can he explain MAFF's reluctance to inform the public of the source of eggs that have been infected with salmonella?

Mr. Morris: As the hon. Gentleman has put his question from the Dispatch Box, it must be a question for the Minister to answer later.
If there is a problem, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge put his finger on it in the three questions that he asked. He said that certain responsibilities had been transferred to the Department of Health. There are, unfortunately, some grey areas. I believe that the Department of Health should be involved only in those food products that make medical claims and that all other food products should be firmly in the province of MAA]F. The Department of Health is the sponsoring Ministry to the pharmaceutical industry and controls it through the Committee on Safety of Medicines. If it can do both, I see no reason why MAFF cannot do two jobs. If there is to be change, it should be done in that way, so that hon. Members and consumers know that any matter to do with food is firmly in MAFF's court.
In relation to Europe, as we approach 1992, MAFF is doing a good job in interpreting the needs of British consumers in Europe especially in preserving and ensuring British freedoms in relation, for example to beer arid methods of distribution and in opposing nonsensical ideas such as those in the oils and fats tax. MAFF does a good job and should have our support.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall confine my remarks to one matter, part of which, I accept at the outset, is not entirely the Minister's responsibility. However, we have established, so far, that there are many overlaps between the responsibilities of the Department of Health and MAFF.
I want to consider cook-chill and listeria for one reason. I became personally involved in the issue as a result of the unfortunate tragedy at Stanley Royd hospital in 1984, n which 19 people died and several others became seriously ill in a salmonellor outbreak. Shortly after that, I became a member of Wakefield health authority which, with no support from me, moved towards a cook-chill system to replace the kitchen at Stanley Royd hospital. At that time, I met Professor Richard Lacey, the microbiologist advising the Wakefield health authority, who was strongly opposed to cook—chill. He is known-and in many instances loved—by many Conservative Members. He has received a great deal of abuse from various sources and has been criticised and treated in a disgraceful way because of


his views— to which he has stuck—about listeria and
cook-chill, but it has been proved, over a number of years, that he is completely right. The Wakefield system is being used as a pilot system for the whole of the Yorkshire region and is seen as a means of enabling the wholesale privatisation of catering in the NHS.
There was deep concern about the dispute over cook-chill in Wakefield, so an expert group was established by the regional health authority. It studiously avoided involving people who were known to be critical of the cook-chill system. I noticed that Arthur Pinegar, a principal microbiologist at the public health laboratory service, was involved in the expert group, and was doing private work on cook-chill for certain interests outside the NHS and the public health laboratory service. That has been confirmed in answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled.
I was even more concerned by the subsequent inquiry into the management of Wakefield health authority, which recommended the removal of Sir Jack Smart as chairman and suggested that his replacement should have no contact with the health authority or involvement with the issues that resulted in the various problems. His replacement, appointed by the Government, was Brian Hayward, who had been the vice-chair of Yorkshire regional health authority and had chaired the expert group that studied the introduction of cook-chill. His appointment was the clearest evidence yet that the Government's desire to see cook-chill up and running in Wakefield was a prelude to its introduction elsewhere in Yorkshire and subsequently in other parts of the country. It is interesting that Mr. Hayward has chaired two meetings so far, but has refused to accept anyone raising the issue of the cook-chill system, which is being introduced in the health authority in the next few weeks.
What has happened in Yorkshire has shown clearly the extent of the political scandal that surrounds cook-chill and that powerful business interests—which we see represented in this debate—are overriding serious concerns about public health. There has been a scandalous Government cover-up on the real incidence of listeriosis. Over the past few years, there has been a huge increase in food poisoning which has coincided with the recent trend towards less traditional forms of food preservation, such as chilling.
If one considers the evidence from abroad, one discovers that 200 people died in France in 1986 as a result of listeriosis. In the same year, 200 people died in the United States as a result of listeriosis. It is interesting that, officially, there have been no deaths from listeriosis in this country. I received a parliamentary answer recently which said that in 1987–88, a total of 546 listeriosis cases were reported to the public health laboratory service, but only three had causes that were known to be related to food. The causes of the other 543 cases were not known. That raises serious questions about the reason behind the incidence of listeriosis.
One of the major problems, as I said in an intervention earlier, is that listeriosis is not a notifiable disease in the United Kingdom, so we do not know the true incidence of it. However, we have a good deal of recent evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) went through some of the evidence. He mentioned the

"This Week" programme and the Bristol survey. I must mention that it has been proved that the death of a baby in Leeds fairly recently was directly related to the consumption of cook-chill food bought from a supermarket. The Leeds environmental health service found that seven of 12 samples from different retail outlets contained listeriosis. There was also a survey in Peterborough and yesterday, there was evidence from the public health laboratory service that listeriosis can lie dormant for five days if stored at 7…5 deg C. and then reproduction erupts. That is a worrying problem facing the Government.
Professor Lacy has stated that he believes that 150 to 200 people die every year in this country directly as a result of listeria. The questions that he has raised are not being answered by the various Departments that are concerned with the problem. I want to ask several serious questions and I expect detailed answers to them in the Minister's winding-up speech.
First, in view of all the evidence, to which I and other hon. Members have referred, why have the Government not issued a warning about the consumption of cook-chill food especially by, for example, pregnant women and other vulnerable consumers? Secondly, why are the Government continuing to push the use of cook-chill food in hospitals—as they are in Wakefield and Yorkshire—when the risks from listeria to vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and the elderly are so obvious?
Thirdly—and most important in view of the evidence that we now have—why have the Government not acted on the fact that most if not all supermarkets are contravening the Department of Health guidelines on cook-chill food, both in terms of length of storage and temperature? I also want to know—this is a clear question that should have been answered in written answers—what is the real reason why the new Government guidelines on cook-chill that we have been expecting for months have not yet appeared? I was told that they would be ready last August. Since then I have been told several times that they are not ready, but I have never been told why.
I have spoken only briefly and would have liked to speak at much greater length but I know that many of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. I hope that, having waited so long, they will be able to do so and I shall conclude with a number of serious points.
The Government face a huge dilemma over listeria. If the Government tighten standards on, for example, the maximum three-day detention period for cook-chill food, the catering industry, which has huge contracts and investments worth billions of pounds, will face disaster. If the Government tighten up as they should, that will have an incredible impact on the industry, which is so well represented by Conservative Members today—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Well, a number of Conservative Members have declared an interest in the catering industry, which is what usually happens from the Tory Benches in such debates. They are directly concerned with and paid by food companies. That point is crucial to our understanding of the Government's position on this issue.
The Government are in deep difficulty in dealing with the retail trade over cook-chill and listeria. They are also in difficulties with their policy on privatising NHS catering. Cook-chill is essential to the wholesale privatisation of catering in the National Health Service. If the Government do nothing and there is a serious listeriosis outbreak, there will rightly be a huge public


outcry about the fact that the knowledge and the evidence were there, but the Government did absolutely nothing. The Government have, understandably from their point of view, chosen the latter course.
The Government are looking after certain friends of the Conservative party in the food industry, and that is no surprise to my hon. Friends. The Government are looking after friends such as Ranks Hovis McDougall plc, which gave £40,000 to the Tory party last year and is directly involved in cook-chill. The Government are looking after friends such as United Biscuits which gave £100,000 to the Conservative party last year and is involved in cook-chill. Indeed, it recently opened a cook-chill division in south Humberside and is ideally placed to move into private catering contracts in the Yorkshire regional health authority area and in health authorities such as my own in Wakefield. The Government are looking after the interests of those such as George Weston Holdings, which includes Associated British Foods, which donated £150,000 to Tory party funds last year.
Those are the real interests that Conservative Members represent and that is why the Government are in such difficulty on this issue. They dare not move because of those huge interests and the investments that are made directly to the Conservative party by companies that are tied up with cook-chill—

Mr. Lord: rose—

Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I am about to conclude. Through loyalty to my hon. Friends who have queued up all afternoon and who may not get called, I cannot give way. The Minister will have a chance to respond to those points.
I repeat that there has been a scandalous Government cover-up of the real threat from listeria. The evidence is clearly before our eyes. The cover-up is necessary to protect the interests of the friends of the Conservative party at the expense of the safety of the consumer.

Mr. Richard Alexander: The House will have been saddened to hear most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He has devalued his own argument and soured what up to now has been a constructive debate.
In the past few weeks we have seen a build-up of hysteria about our food—whipped up by commentators with an eye to a headline, nurtured by the media, which like nothing more than a good scare story, and stirred up not least by the Opposition who are trying to claim that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be a Food Minister at the same time as being an Agriculture Minister.
In our lifetimes, we have all been used to scaremongering by so-called experts. When I was younger, we were told that children should not eat baked beans. Now we are told that they contain high protein and that children should have more of them. Sugar used to be described as bad for us, but no longer. Milk, eggs and cheese have all had their detractors—and equally their champions—from time to time.
Salmonella enteritidis was the scare story of last month and we all know what happened to the egg industry for a while as a result—

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alexander: No, I am developing my argument.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his intervention in the middle of that hysteria as it put a floor on the egg market and did much to prevent a scare from becoming a catastrophe.

Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is a shame and a crime that the victims of the salmonella outbreaks, the people who have suffered and who on rare occasions have died, have not been compensated at all, while the farmers, who were partly responsible, have been compensated in full?

Mr. Alexander: That is a different argument, but the amount of compensation that was provisionally arranged had had only a small take-up by the farmers.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned a tragic episode at a Wakefield hospital. I must advise him that following that incident the Government immediately took action under the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 to remove Crown immunity from the hospital kitchens. That issue was raised earlier by another Labour Member who advocated the removal of something that has already been removed.

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
This month we have a new villain, listeria. It has been lovingly seized on by the media and carefully nurtured by consumer programmes. It is frightening the life out of vulnerable people who are worried about what they may or may not eat and who until last week had probably never even heard of it. I wonder how many hon. Members, excluding the experts sitting in the Chamber today, had heard of listeria before we broke up for the Christmas recess—not many, I bet.

Ms. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alexander: No, I have already given way many times.
These scares need to be put into perspective. Two hundred million eggs are consumed every week. Do we see people dropping like flies in old folks' homes? Are they carted out of hospital because they have contracted that mysterious disease? Do people approach us in the street, telling us tales of the people whom they know who have been suffering from salmonella and asking what the Government are going to do about it? We did have the unfortunate death of a schoolboy last week, but to the best of my knowledge even that case has not been proved to be salmonella enteritidis caused by eating an egg. About 200 million eggs have been consumed each week during the past four, five or six weeks and there is no evidence of the scare stories that we heard a few weeks ago coming true.
Sometimes I think that the nation loses its sense of perspective. We could put the issue into greater perspective by remembering that about 200 people die on our roads each month and that hundreds of thousands of people are maimed on our roads every year. We do not have many debates about that, and Opposition motions such as the one that we are discussing are not tabled about that situation.
The answer to the salmonella scare, to the listeria hysteria, is known to everyone who was brought up by


sensible mothers in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, before the new food processes, the new types of food or the microwave oven came on the scene.

Ms. Gordon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Alexander: The answer is clear: we should cook our food properly, boil our eggs for at least two minutes, roast frozen chicken properly and never reheat cooked meat that has been allowed to go cold. If we must use microwave ovens, we should make sure that we know how to use them and that they properly grill and roast what we put in them. Most of us learned all that at our mother's knee. We never ate raw eggs, chicken that was not properly roasted or twice-cooked food, yet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is pilloried because new techniques have made people more careless, especially when they do not fully understand those techniques.
It has been suggested that it would be wise to split the Minister of Agriculture's responsibilities and that he cannot ride two horses that are running in opposite directions. I do not mind if the responsibilities are split, but, on his behalf, I resent the slurs that have been spread, suggesting that he is incapable of looking after the consumer and the producer. Certainly, many of my farming constituents in Nottinghamshire would take great issue with many of the claims that my right hon. Friend is the farmers' pocket. Equally, the consumer groups would find it difficult to recognise some of the farmers' complaints that he is too much under the thumb of consumer pressure groups. He is riding both horses in the same direction very well indeed.
The food process is a continuous one. It is for growing, producing and marketing food. There need be no conflict in those stages and, even if there were a change, the same civil servants would be doing the same job but in two different offices. The change would be much more cosmetic than real. Many other countries have a Minister for agriculture and food. A Transport Minister can deal with roads and safety. A Secretary of State for industry can deal with manufacturing and encouraging production and still deal with consumer safety and protection.
There is, therefore, no great need for change. There is no need to worry that my right hon. Friend cannot protect the consumer. His recent measures in respect of salmonella and listeria have shown that. There is no need for some of the fear that has recently blown up in the minds of many consumers. We do a disservice to the public and to those who work in the farming and service industries if we try to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I am glad that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has spoken out against cook-chill. He said that we should never eat meat that has been cooked, allowed to cool and cooked again. We have heard a great deal about salmonella in this debate and it is fair to say that I am probably the only Member of this House who has isolated the organism or seen it under a microscope. Judging by some of the comments that have been made, I suggest that few hon. Members would know it if they tripped over a bucket of it.
I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) refuses to appear before the Select Committee because she was pontificating on a subject that she knew little or nothing about. It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and, in this case, it was certainly dangerous for egg producers in this country. Instead of putting the blame correctly where it lay—no pun intended—which is at the door of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, she put it at the door of the egg producers. All the real evidence shows that poultry have had a salmonella problem for years, not necessarily phage type 4, but many of the 1,500 species of salmonella that are rife in this country. If she had said that most poultry production was infected with salmonella of one sort or another, she might have had the backing of the evidence and she would have served the nation's health.
The evidence of any special attribute of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4, which makes it much more dangerous in respect of eggs, is extremely tenuous. For some time, transovarian infection of eggs has been shown to occur in septicaemic conditions with all sorts of species of salmonella. The growth of overt cases of salmonella and, incidentally, other types of poisoning—clostridia], staphylococcal and streptococcal—suggests to me that the problem is not one of any "super-bug", but one of food handling. If the rise of chilled and "fast" foods is coupled with the complacency of the Ministry about primary production, we have a recipe for disaster.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can certainly do something about primary production and it is certain that it is not performing its functions as well as possible. It is probably true that, if a simple, accurate test had been available, we would have had no problem now so far as salmonella is concerned, as other tests have rid the industry of other forms of specific salmonella infection, such as salmonella pullorum and gallinarum during the period 1940–55.
I have dwelt on the subject of salmonella, but there are other grave areas of doubt that need sorting out for the good of the consumer and the producer. They include bovine somatotropin in milk and antibiotics in meat. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who is no longer in his place, referred to the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy as a triumph for the Ministry. However, the Ministry compensated farmers only for 50 per cent. of the value of the animals affected which can hardly be considered as an inducement to report such cases.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was a Ministry with a purpose for the consumer when production was necessary for adequate nutrition. Now, with the advent of increasing technology in preservation and production, different criteria are needed for the good of the consumer and, indeed, to protect the producer from the unnecessary ups and downs caused by scares. The vast majority of farmers wish to have real guidance and want only to produce good wholesome food.
The Department of Health should have a clear responsibility to ensure that food is wholesome at the point of use and that enforcement of any necessary measures, if they are required in the area of primary production, should be mandatory on what is, in effect, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food production.

Mr. Michael Lord: I am conscious that the clock is against us and I shall be as brief as I can. I know that this is an Opposition day, but I welcome the debate to highlight what I see as many of the great successes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over the years, which the Minister spelled out very well at the beginning of our debate. I should have thought that there was no doubt about its success until very recent days. The Ministry has existed for 34 years, since its amalgamation, and has done an extremely good job. Everyone has been satisfied with it. The Opposition have had opportunities to bring this subject forward for debate before, if they had wanted to do so, but they have not done SO.
The Ministry's achievements are numerous. We all know about the eradication of disease that it has organised, such as tuberculosis in the early days and the great improvements in cultivating and breeding plants and animals. There is increased consumer orientation in the way products such as eggs and meat have been tailored towards the needs of the housewife and the detailed labelling of products has increasingly become a feature of our food, as other hon. Members have commented. We have the highest food safety standards in Europe and, if anyone visited one of my chicken processing factory in Suffolk, he would see what care is taken and would be greatly reassured, in view of much of the talk that has been bandied around today.
The national diet is now much healthier. We have heard this evening of people having to eat cotton wool bread—having it stuffed down their throats. I do not see why. All the evidence is that people are looking carefully at their diets and eating more sensibly. They are eating more wholemeal bread, and so on. MAFF greatly encourages that trend.
The achievement has been largely due to MAFF—we have a huge choice of excellent food, properly labelled and reasonably priced. That is a great success story, not only for MAFF and for farming, but for the food industry. It has been a great combined effort. It is true that recently we have had more problems with salmonella and listeria. I do not underrate them, but firm action has been taken and the matters are now in hand. MAFF was right to take steps to underpin the egg industry before Christmas; they have had the desired result. It was also right to re-emphasise the need that some of my hon. Friends have mentioned to cook food properly. That is crucial. The Minister has also tightened controls on egg production and is pressing forward with research into all these problems which was already in hand.
Like my hon. Friends, I deplore the hysteria and ill-informed comment inside and outside the House. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) underlined that point and I agree with him, although I do not have his depth of knowledge. Words such as "epidemic" can be all too easily bandied about and have done great harm—

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lord: I cannot possibly give way: this is a race against the clock.
Such words do great harm. People comment on the differences between free-range and battery hens without understanding those differences, not knowing that free-range eggs have little advantage over battery eggs.
How eggs are cooked is important. Such cases of poisoning as have occurred have been in the larger catering establishments in which more care needs to be taken. There have not been so many in domestic circumstances, in which eggs can be more carefully cooked in the traditional way.
The House will be interested to know that the people of Suffolk have been sensible. A recent poll in one of our newspapers showed that 1010 per cent. of the people interviewed and asked about their reaction to the egg story said that they had not changed their egg-eating habits—and people in Suffolk live to grand old ages.
MAFF is not alone in its responsibilities. My hon. Friends have explained how other Departments are involved. Local authorities, supermarkets, retailers and consumer bodies all have responsibilities. As we have also been told, independent consumer committees which are able to scrutinise what is going on continually keep an eye on these matters. No one pretends that there are no difficulties. Modern farming methods, mass catering and modern production techniques mean that there are, but I believe that no Department is better qualified or experienced to keep an eye on these matters than MAFF. Nothing is shabbier than an Opposition looking for a scapegoat: MAFF should not be that scapegoat.

Mr. Ron Davies: There is only one thing shabbier, and that is the spectacle of an hon. Member making an agreement with the Opposition to limit his speech and then breaking it. The House will understand if the Minister's opportunity to reply is shortened by the couple of minutes that were deliberately taken up by the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the health of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure the House will unanimously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to him our best wishes and hopes that he will make a speedy return to the House.
The Minister's absence has presented the Parliamentary Secretary with something of a unique opportunity-two chances to speak in one debate. That is indeed a rare opportunity, but judging from his earlier performance he will manage to avoid having greatness thrust upon him by a comfortable margin.
What was particularly noticeable about the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was not what he included in his defence of his Department's handling of public health issues, but what he omitted from it. My hon. Friends this evening have asked the Government to account for the handling of the following problems: contaminated lamb resulting from Chernobyl, listeria, salmonella, campylobacter, BST and BSE, pesticide residues, nitrate pollution of water supplies, the quality of food imports, meat inspection, hormone growth promoters and tenderisers, irradiation, research and development, animal welfare and antibiotics, veterinary services, the environmental health service and the problems of 1992.

Ms. Gordon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: In a moment.
We heard nothing about the Government's record on any of those issues. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) has been in the Chamber all day and is anxious to intervene, so I shall make an exception in her case.

Ms. Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the issues he has just listed—the dangers of bacteria, hormones, radiation, pesticides and the pollution of water—are of serious concern to the women of this country, who are trying to provide their families with a healthy diet on a limited budget? Is it not most unfortunate that no woman has been included in the list of speakers to present the point of view of housewives?

Mr. Davies: It would be inappropriate for me to criticise the selection of speakers, and I assure my hon. Friend that the subjects she has raised do not concern women exclusively. They are of concern to every man, woman and child in the country—although I accept her point that the problems of eking out a meagre budget fall more heavily on women.
The Minister mentioned the speech of his right hon. Friend at the Oxford conference, from which I too want to quote. He said:
People are—quite rightly—taking more interest than ever before in what they eat and drink. They now take for granted the wide variety of products in our shops. They demand quality and they expect that all their food will be nutritious and safe. It is up to the industry to ensure that these expectations are met".
I agree with those aspirations, but not necessarily with the Minister's conclusion that it is entirely up to the industry to ensure that expectations are met. It is our contention that the Ministry has a responsibility, as well as the industry. If there is a single issue that divides us it is our claim that the responsibility for the enforcement of standards rests with the Ministry, and that it cannot be abdicated in favour of the industry.
The Minister made his speech on 4 January, so it is fair to say that we can take it as representing the up-to-date thinking of the Ministry. The Minister's demands were for variety and quality, and for nutritious and safe food. We believe that those demands are not being met. The most important reason why the Opposition asked for this subject to be debated on this Opposition day is the simple fact that the demands articulated by the Minister are not being met by his Department.
The most obvious and topical area in which the Ministry is failing the consumer is exemplified by the recent crisis of confidence in the egg industry. It is also a fine example of the interdependent interests of producers and consumers, for without the trust of the latter the producers have no market in which to trade their goods.
The Ministry's failures during this fiasco were manifold. The incident can be traced back to the change in attitude, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) pointed out, to public health and consumer welfare that was heralded by the arrival of the Conservatives in office in 1979. They changed the rules. There was at that time a serious attempt to tackle the problem of salmonella in poultry by agreeing standards with the protein processing industry that would ensure, as far as possible, that animal feed was not a vector for the spread of infection.
We have already heard the comments of the chairman of the Renderers Association, who said that standards had

changed. I refer to the comment by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who entertained us all with his comments in today's debate:
Health concerns were overruled in drafting the rules".
If there is a problem with salmonella, it dates back to the change of attitude that went hand in hand with the change of Government in 1979.
In 1986 and 87, 38 out of 218 tests for salmonella in feed processing plants proved positive, but there was not one prosecution. No action was taken by the Ministry. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), described himself as brilliant, and said that his winding up would be brilliant. We thought for a moment that he was reading the Minister's speech inadvertently. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 14 December, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
On re-inspection, all samples of products from these contaminated plants were found to be clear of salmonella contamination and so no prosecutions were brought.
According to a written answer that I received yesterday from the other Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson)—who is not here—in 19 cases the plants tested were still infected when examined a second time. Unbelievably, in that same written answer, the Parliamentary Secretary said that in six instances the plants were still contaminated when inspected a third time. Is it not a question, therefore, of a cosy arrangement between MAFF and the renderers? MAFF visits plants and says, "There is a bit of a problem here; you must tidy up there; a hit of new equipment is needed there; then everything will be okay, because we will come back in a month's time and give you a certificate."
It was found on the third inspection that 50 per cent. of the plants which were defective on the second inspection were producing contaminated food which was going into the food chain and causing 40,000 British citizens to be affected by salmonella contamination. There was not one prosecution because of the cosy relationship between MAFF and the renderers. Which of the Parliamentary Secretaries are we to believe?
It is not as if that has been the only problem in the last couple of weeks, because we have heard of the problem of listeria. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who spoke with great knowledge and experience because of the tragic circumstances in his constituency. In spite of the inadequate monitoring of the levels of infection, which exemplify the Government's attitude, what little surveillance has been carried out has revealed the extent of the problem for several years. According to the public health laboratory's communicable health report, the risk has been known for the past eight years. That information has been available, and it is distressing that it has not been acted on by the Ministry. Those matters worry us greatly.
We have had a series of press releases and written answers from MAFF and from the Department of Health, which tell us unequivocally only one thing—because of cuts, interdepartmental rivalry and neglect, those two great Departments of State can speak with no more authority on the extent of listeria than they did on salmonella. Meanwhile, increasingly, we read of deaths, such as those reported in yeaterday's Independent, which are unequivocally associated with listeriosis.
We have heard about other problems, such as cook-chill foods. Most recently, on 21 December, the


Minister was forced to come to the Dispatch Box to answer the complaints about contaminated food supplies in Mid-Cornwall Meat Packers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I give the hon. Gentleman full credit for his private notice question.
The Ministry was notified in September 1988 that supplies of meat were arriving at Mid-Cornwall Meat Packers, which were contaminated with faecal matter and which were in an advanced state of decomposition. The Ministry was notified of that in September, but the first notification by the Ministry to the air and sea port health authorities was in mid-December after the hon. Member for Truro had raised that matter. During that three months, 30 consignments went through the port of Fishguard alone, each consignment consisting of 20 tonnes of beef from the Republic of Ireland, possibly contaminated—certainly much of that for Cornwall was contaminated.
That meat was entering the food chain in this country, and not one warning or notice was given to either the port health authorities or to the scores of authorities whose environmental health officers are desperately trying to ensure adequate and wholesome supplies of food for the people of this country. We owe the environmental health officers a debt of gratitude.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Davies: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but my time has been taken up. I ask him to make the briefest of interventions.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share my concern that, even since this matter was raised, the Government in this country or the Irish authorities have apparently not been able to establish how this happened and therefore can offer no reassurance that it is not continuing.

Mr. Davies: That is precisely my point. There is a problem in Ireland. We do not know whether it is because of illegal slaughtering, a black market deal in veterinary seals or a deliberate misuse of the precedures, but the fact is that the system allows contaminated meat to come into this country. At the port of entry, only 5 per cent. of that meat is inspected. Ninety-five per cent. of the supplies are then available to meat packers and to processors without further inspection. The Ministry did not see fit to issue one warning until the matter had been raised in the House.
Environmental health officers have unprecedented demands upon them due to the burgeoning food processing and preparation industries. There are now 300 fewer such posts than there were in 1983. The latest figures show that, of the 5,500 posts available, there are nearly 500 vacancies—that is, up 135 from 1981. The Government's squeezes on local government spending are to blame. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, however, as the sponsor of the Food Acts, must bear the responsibility for failing to insist that those Acts are fully implemented. It beggars belief that, at a time when public concern is at fever pitch—apparently with ample reason from what we have heard tonight—the Government can be so cavalier in their attitude to the consumer that they are cutting back on the very research that has hitherto been the backbone of the fight against such public health hazards.
The Government's attitude to chemical contamination is no better. Before the introduction of maximum residue levels in food regulations, The Food Magazine commented on a survey of British food by stating:
43 per cent. of fruit and vegetables analysed have detectable pesticide residues. And out of a total of 426 chemicals cleared for use on Britain's farms, 166 are known or suspected of causing reactions or of links with cancer".
At the current rates of testing approved by the Ministry, it will take 50 years for all the commercially available chemicals to be tested. Until then, we cannot be confident that our domestically produced food has acceptable levels of residues.
It is not only the food we eat, but the water we drink. Millions of our citizens are now in receipt of water supplies containing unacceptable levels of nitrates. Even the Secretary of State for the Environment—who is not especially noted for his sensitivity in these matters—has noticed the problem. As part of his privatisation package, he is proposing to fleece the consumer to put right the problems caused by the historical neglect by MAFF.
The motion is tabled in the name of the Opposition. We know, however, that our concerns are shared by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Members for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) have in their own ways expressed their vote of no confidence in the Ministry by calling for it to be stripped of its food responsibilities. We believe that, however well intentioned they are, their target is the wrong one. It is not the structure of the Government which is to blame, but their policies and their doctrinaire commitment to cuts, and especially deregulation. That is why we invite those who oppose the Government to join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Ryder: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate. It is all too easy at the end of such debates for Ministers to describe them as excellent. I believe, however, that this time we have enjoyed an excellent debate with well-informed contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for Northampton South (Mr. Morris), for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), among others. On the Labour side, I especially enjoyed and listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).
Opposition Front Bench spokesmen asked about the protein processing order. I should like to reply to that point and several others in the short time remaining to me. If sampling of a plant's products reveals salmonella contamination, a notice is served requiring compliance with the bacteriological standard within a time limit. Failure to comply, without lawful authority or excuse, constitutes an offence. In 1987 most operators were able to comply within the time limit and their products proved clear of salmonella on resampling. In the few cases where resampling still revealed contamination it was not considered to be a deliberate failure and, therefore, it was not appropriate to bring prosecutions. In only one case was continuing failure to comply revealed on a second resampling. Even in that case the subsequent tests indicated that a salmonella-free product had been achieved.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked about restrictions on farms suspected of infection with salmonella. The decision to impose restrictions has depended and will continue to depend on an assessment of the importance of each case and on an overall assessment of the risks from each strain of salmonella.
The hon. Gentleman was also anxious to know whether we had—I use his words—cut the research project in Bristol. The Goverment's financial support for the research work undertaken will not be lost. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, that support will be diverted to other important microbiological research. The redeployment of the staff is also being considered by their employers—in this case the Agricultural and Food Research Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was anxious to know why three questions that he had put down to our Ministry had been transferred to the Department of Health. I promised to look into that matter, but the prime responsibility for microbiological surveillance, including listeria, rests with the Department of Health. That is why that Department will be responsible for answering his questions.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about veterinary training. That matter rests primarily with the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends in the DES.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) attacked the Ministry for devoting resources to compensation instead of tackling the problems. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out on several occasions, however, not least in a lengthy written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central last week. We have arranged a series of measures to deal with the problem and many have already been introduced. My right hon. Friend said that this amounts to one of the most comprehensive programmes to combat salmonella anywhere in the world.
Listeria was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields and other hon. Members, and it is important to appreciate that my Department, together with the Department of Health and representatives of the industry, is considering current food processing, distribution, retailing and labelling to ensure the safety of the food supply. Appropriate research is being carried out where information is lacking and codes of practice are being developed in conjunction with the industry. The Ministry is funding research projects to investigate improved methods of detecting the bacteria and how processing factors and storage conditions affect the growth and survival of this particular strain of listeria which is causing so much concern.
The motion concerns the Government's handling of food and its effect on consumers. Today I pointed out twice that this is the first time that the Opposition have selected a Supply day to debate this issue since we came into Government in 1979. To claim that the Government are not concerned about consumers is as fatuous as claiming that the conductor is interested only in his orchestra and not the audience. The Government have always taken their responsibilities to consumers and

taxpayers far more seriously than has the Labour party. Since the Government took office 10 years ago food prices have increased on average at 5·6 per cent. per annum. That is nearly 2 per cent. a year less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, consumers have benefited under the Government. Prices are now 17 per cent. lower in real terms than they were when we took office in May 1979.
What about the Labour Government's record between 1974 and 1979? My hon. Friends will remember that, during the 1970s, food prices were supposed to be controlled by the ill-fated Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. That was such a misnomer that it even defied the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
The Government have a responsibility for the entire food chain and that responsibility has been exercised with particular emphasis on the joint interests of the taxpayer and the consumer. What a contrast that is with the Labour Government's record when the well-being of consumers was eroded by disruptions to the food chain caused by strikes and that Government's inefficiency.
We have allowed for the operation of the market and, therefore, we have created the environment in which the food industry has become one of the most successful sectors of the economy—it accounts for no less than 10 per cent. of the gross national product and employs more than 3 million people. Under the Labour Government, consumers faced price rises almost every day and consumer choice was impeded by ineffective, muddled and restrictive economic policies. Under Labour, consumers were faced with food shortages and lack of choice. Now consumers have better choice and better quality food than ever before. I am happy to defend the record of the Government against the Labour record today or any day the Opposition choose.
During the 1980s we have taken a consistent line. We have fought hard in Brussels to control the excesses of the CAP and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend was doing last night when he was taken ill. We have reduced prices, surpluses and the waste of taxpayers' money. We have increased expenditure on food safety and, consequently, given a better deal to consumers.
Several hon. Members, including the Opposition spokesmen, have alleged that the Government have cut research and development projects on food safety, but nothing could be further from the truth. I happen to have with me, for the sake of convenience, a computer list of all such R and D projects funded by my Department during the past two years. If I had brought the computer list for the past 10 years I would have been unable to carry it, yet the Opposition claims that we have cut such R and D work.
Since the 1970s, the quality and variety of the food available has changed. The Labour party tried to dictate the composition of food through detailed food law. That discredited and outmoded approach acted as a disincentive to innovation, and the failure of the United Kingdom dairy industry to market low-fat milk earlier than it did was, in part, due to Labour-inspired rules about the fat content of milk.
The Opposition's allegations today have plummeted to the depths of matchless distortion. By attacking the Government, the Opposition have cast aspersions on the scores and scores of vets and other experts whose advice is acted on by the Ministry; that includes scores and scores of doctors and academics. Those scientists, doctors and vets are men and women of the highest probity and their


skills and devotion to duty are beyond doubt. They are admired in Britain and respected and envied in Europe. They help to ensure the safety of our food and they will resent and reject, as I do, the accusations levelled against them by the Opposition.
Today the Opposition have behaved like rabbits and, as students of Beatrix Potter will know, rabbits that stray into Mr. McGregor's garden generally end up in Mrs. McGregor's pot. I ask the House to reject the Labour party motion and to pass our own.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once. Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Parliamentary Secretary's speech was a disgraceful response to what he described as a fine debate. It is a shame that the Government cannot do better to answer the deep-seated concerns that have been expressed throughout the country about the purity of food except by resorting, once again, to cheap electioneering and debating points about what happened in the past 10 years.
Do the Government not understand how seriously disturbed the whole nation is by the many cases of food contamination? We have seen a display from the Minister who waved about a long list of computer—

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 313.

Division No. 46]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Darling, Alistair


Blair, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blunkett, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boateng, Paul
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Douglas, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alexander


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Cartwright, John
Flannery, Martin





Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fyfe, Maria
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galbraith, Sam
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliott


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mullin. Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gould, Bryan
O'Brien, William


Graham, Thomas
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Parry, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pike, Peter L.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Primarolo, Dawn


Heffer, Eric S.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hinchliffe, David
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, Martin


Holland, Stuart
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Home Robertson, John
Reid, Dr John


Hood, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ftoberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ftobertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ftobinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Flogers, Allan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Flooker, Jeff


Illsley, Eric
Fioss, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Flowlands, Ted


Janner, Greville
Fluddock, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lambie, David
Short, Clare


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


McAllion, John
Strang, Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Turner, Dennis


McFall, John
Vaz, Keith


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Walley, Joan


McKelvey, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McLeish, Henry
Wareing, Robert N.


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McTaggart, Bob
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Madden, Max
Wilson, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Winnick, David


Marek, Dr John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Ken Easthara and


Maxton, John
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Amos, Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alton, David
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack






Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Fookes, Dame Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, George


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brlgg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gregory, Conal


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ground, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Critchley, Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Irvine, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Irving, Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Kennedy, Charles


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Kilfedder, James


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evennett, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kirkwood, Archy


Fallon, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Favell, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fearn, Ronald
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)





Knowles, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Redwood, John


Lang, Ian
Renton, Tim


Latham, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawrence, Ivan
Riddick, Graham


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lightbown, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rost, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael



McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Matins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marland, Paul
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speller, Tony


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stokes, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Wallace, James


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Wheeler, John


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wilkinson, John


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Woodcock, Mike


Porter, David (Waveney)
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Price, Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30. (Questions on amendments):—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that the House has a problem with its time devices and that the order to lock the doors may have been called prematurely. In the light of that, I propose to allow the doors to be reopened and to remain open for one minute.

The House having divided: Ayes 280, Noes 211.

Division No. 47]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bendall, Vivian
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bitfen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brazier, Julian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gow, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Heddle, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cran, James
Hill, James


Critchley, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Curry, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Holt, Richard





Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Kilfedder, James
Riddick, Graham


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)


Lightbown, David



Lilley, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sioames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sipicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wood, Timothy


Needham, Richard
Woodcock, Mike


Nelson, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Mr. David Maclean.


Norris, Steve





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Alton, David
Armstrong, Hilary






Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Bidwell, Sydney
Galloway, George


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blunkett, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Graham, Thomas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.


Cartwright, John
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Holland, Stuart


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Coleman, Oonald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lambie, David


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Doran, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eadie, Alexander
Lofthouse, Geoffrey





Loyden, Eddie
Radice, Giles


McAllion, John
Randall, Stuart


McAvoy, Thomas
Redmond, Martin


McCartney, Ian
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Macdonald, Calum A.
Reid, Dr John


McFall, John
Richardson, Jo


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, Jeff


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morley, Elliott
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Vaz, Keith


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Brien, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Robert N. Warring.


Quin, Ms Joyce

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on its achievements on behalf of consumers in the fields of food safety, food surveillance, and consumer information which means that they have wide variety and choice of wholesome foods at reasonable prices; commends its comprehensive response to the emergence of health risks; and commends its constant concern for consumers' interest in European Community negotiations.

Orders of the Day — City of London (Spitafields Market) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 12 May 1988. The Bill spent an extremely long time in Committee and there was not time before the Session ended, to proceed with the Third Reading, even in the spill-over. However, as hon. Members will recall, there was a revival motion and we now have the Third Reading.
It is right that I should briefly point out the ways in which the Bill before us differs from that of May 1988. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) opposed the Bill because his constituents in Stratford market were unhappy. They are now satisfied and he has withdrawn his opposition, as has his local authority.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) voted for the Second Reading of the Bill because he was content. I express it that way to show that there is cross-party support for the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Bethnall Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is fighting, as I hope I would, a stout-hearted battle as a constituency Member. I respect him for that because the prime job of all hon. Members is to represent their constituencies. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is taking exactly the same line.
As a result of hearings in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, three major changes appear in the Bill that seeks its Third Reading tonight. First, the annual payments for the training schemes have been increased from £50,000 a year to £150,000 a year. Secondly, the payment to the local community trust has been increased from £2·5 million to £5 million. Thirdly, the corporation of the City of London has undertaken to maintain the open spaces at Elder gardens in perpetuity, if the developers' interests cease.
I should like to make it clear that on the revival motion, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made two incorrect assertions which need to be corrected. He said:
the Committee could not respond to the petitioners' central point, which was that the Bill should not be proceeded with. The Committee could not respond to that request, because the House had already given the Bill a Second Reading.
That is incorrect because a Committee on a local Bill can disallow that Bill, notwithstanding the fact that it has received a Second Reading, particularly if the Committee finds the preamble not proved. The Committee was not so constrained. The right hon. Gentleman also said:
Almost any substantial market site has such problems".—[Official Report, 1 December 1988; Vol. 142, c. 929–30.]
He was referring to traffic congestion but that is incorrect because Spitalfields has no fixed boundaries and is crossed by a number of public highways. The new site at Temple Mills will be fully enclosed, with one main entrance only. Market traffic will therefore come off the general highway network.
In column 931 the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of possible changes in the plan. All that I can say is that

none have come forward. If they did, they would have to be submitted to the normal planning processes. That has nothing to do with this Bill.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar in column 932 raised the important issue—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is not an appropriate occasion to have an inquest on an earlier debate. It is outside the scope of a proper debate on Third Reading.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I was demonstrating what is in the Bill in relation to what was said earlier, which I thought might be acceptable. The Elder gardens issue has been clarified by Tower Hamlets. It has given an undertaking to keep a substantial portion as open space.
I do not want to detain the House long because the principles were decided on Second Reading. The Committee made sensible alterations and the House agreed that the matter should come forward in this way. Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. If necessary, with the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to any new points that may emerge.

Mr. Peter Shore: I agree that on 12 May when we debated the Second Reading I, along with others, opposed the propositions in the Bill for two main reasons. First, the planning case for transferring the horticultural market in Spitalfields to a new location at Temple Mills in the borough of Waltham Forest had not been made. Secondly, the planned redevelopment of the market site was against the wishes and interests of the great bulk of the residents in the Spitalfields area.
The real case for the Bill—this was not the case argued in the House at the time—is the alternative and lucrative use to which the site of the present Spitalfields market is to be put. The City of London corporation is to receive a capital sum of about £60 million, a new market worth about £35 million and revenues from the old market site of £2·5 million a year—a substantial financial package. Spitalfields development group will be the other great gainer, carrying out a profitable, mainly office, development costing some £500 million.
We are now nine months away from the Second Reading debate. Having read the record of the 11 meetings of the Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), I find no reason to change my original judgment and I shall vote against the Third Reading.
Before proceeding, I wish to place on record my thanks to the Committee. Committee members showed patience and care in their treatment of petitioners and witnesses who appeared before them. I also thank the petitioners who argued their case before the Committee with skill and persistence.
There have been developments and changes since we last debated the matter. Like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), I should like to refer to them. First, the Committee considered closely the section 52 agreement between Spitalfields development group, the City corporation and the London borough of Tower Hamlets. The Committee found that agreement inadequate in several respects and sought enhanced undertakings from the promoters.
The main agreed items, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has told us, were, first, that, Spitalfields Redevelopment Group gave a stronger and more permanent commitment to maintaining Elder gardens and Horner square so long as the City corporation maintained its lease on the old market site. Secondly, the amount set aside for the community trust which will assist a number of organisations in Spitalfields was raised from £2·5 million to £5 million, a welcome increase. Thirdly, finance for the training schemes to be run by THATT was increased from £50,000 to £150,000 per annum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-East (Mr. Leighton) pointed out in an intervention on Second Reading, £50,000 would have financed the training of only 10 or 12 young people a year. Now we have training finance for 30 to 36 people.
The fourth change was improved compensation for the Market garage at Spital square, which was to be displaced. Outside the section 52 agreement a further change was designed to make more permanent and certain guarantees for the maintenance of the only open space in the area which is Allen gardens. This guarantee hinges on the ongoing policies of Tower Hamlets council. As the Committee accepted, unfortunately a local authority cannot fetter its discretion in advance, so no absolutely binding undertakings can be given. Nevertheless the council gave verbal undertakings from which it would be difficult for it to withdraw.
Another change that I must report to the House is a reduction in the number of petitioners. The intention of the Transport and General Workers Union to withdraw its petition was announced to the House on 12 May in the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. In evidence to the Committee the union made it plain that its anxieties about disturbance costs and possible redundancies of employees in the market had been satisfied by a payment of £300,000 to the union. During the Committee stage Stratford market traders, who had originally felt that they would be disadvantaged by the move to Temple Mills, withdrew their petition in return for compensation totalling £1·8 million to be divided among the 25 or 30 traders.
The Committee stage also cast considerable light on how the market tenants association now representing the existing Spitalfields market traders came to accept the move to Temple Mills. It was a considerable change. I told the House on Second Reading of the Greater London council's study of east end London markets in 1985. The GLC questionnaire found that of about 100 market tenants involved, 59 felt that there were real advantages at the site at Spitalfields and 69 had no immediate plans to relocate their business. I said that that did not indicate any great desire among market traders to move and that their consent to do so two years later was probably due to a feeling of resignation in face of the strong pressures from the corporation of London and Spitalfields Development Group. The evidence on day five, 21 June 1988, gives a detailed account of what took place. No doubt many arguments were found to be persuasive, but pride of place must be given to the Spitalfields Redevelopment Group whose offer of £7·5 million in compensation, was, I suspect, conclusive.
It is clear that a number of interests were squared during the Committee stage. It would be churlish not to recognise the helpful role of the Committee in securing changes in the section 52 agreement. But these changes are, after all, only marginal. The local interests of employees and employers directly involved in the Spitalfields market and the interests of other market traders in Stratford have been taken care of and compensation paid. That is something.
The two major objections that I put on 12 May remain unaffected. First, the case for relocating Spitalfields market, and in particular for resiting it at Temple Mills, has not been made. I pointed out on Second Reading that the City of London in its very frank report, "The Future of Spitalfields", acknowledged on 22 October 1987 that there was
no overriding reason to relocate the market".
Acknowledging certain problems with the present site, the report concluded:
despite these factors, the market is relatively successful and it has to be said that not all the problems are insurmountable: e.g. with the co-operation of the local authority (Tower Hamlets) and the Metropolitan Police much could be done to alleviate rubbish dumping and traffic congestion respectively. More space could he found in the area for vehicle parking and the corporation could consider taking control of the surrounding streets in order to regulate the whole trading area.
As I also pointed out, no planning study of London's existing markets and their future location has been undertaken. Indeed, there is no body or organisation now in existence that can plan on an all-London basis.
Furthermore, there has been no authoritative study of the Temple Mills site. Mr. Thomerson, one of the long-standing tenants of Spitalfields market and a petitioner against the Bill, argued strongly that the facilities provided by the new market were already out of date and that the traffic problems would be just as serious in Temple Mills as they are in Spitalfields. Mr. Thomerson is sufficiently disturbed by the prospects that he has already presented a further petition in readiness for the Committee stage, should the Bill reach the other place.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is responsible for markets and whose Minister is not present tonight—I welcome the presence of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—has adopted a neutral posture towards the Bill and has expressed no view about the desirability of change. Indeed, in a reply of 6 June to Mr. Thomerson, who wrote to the Minister, a MAFF official said:
We feel that the issues raised on the horticultural side are commercial ones which are best dealt with by those involved commercially. We are very much aware that there is opposition from several different quarters and we are concerned that a petitioner such as yourself should avail himself of the opportunity to present petitions to the Bill in Committee. It is here that detailed consideration can best be given to the point you raised.
With all respect to the Committee, it is not equipped to consider whether the Spitalfields market should be best located in Temple Mills. In his new petition, Mr. Thomerson gives a detailed critique of the desired layout of Temple Mills, concluding that,
without considerable attention to these items, the new proposed market of Spitalfields is less suitable than its existing premises, in consequence of which the Preamble to the Bill and the reason for the proposed alteration of the site becomes untrue.
As the House will recall, the preamble to the Bill begins:


The age and condition of Spitalfields market is such that the market fails to meet modern market needs and practices.
Mr. Thomerson's petition goes on:
Without some improvement in local access and egress roads, many of which are local residential one-way systems, congestion in the area will become intolerable, certainly until such times as the M11 is extended to the area and could seriously detract from any success if the proposed new market by causing the local traffic problem to be no better than at the existing site therefore defeating the objective of an improved traffic situation".
So much for the planning case for the proposed transfer. But the heart of the objection remains the proposed redevelopment of the vacated Spitafields site with a substantial new office development. I have no prejuduce against office developments, but to devote the greater part of the 11-acre Spitalfields market site to the provision of a further 885,000 sq ft of offices, in a borough which has already provided scores of acres and millions of square feet to office buildings in its dockland area, is a flagrant misuse of scarce building land. It becomes all the more blatant when that is put alongside the fact that Tower Hamlets has the worst housing problem in London, and Spitalfield ward is the most deprived ward, not only in housing but in every other respect, in the whole of Britain.
The ward is also the centre of the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets where, for employment purposes, low-cost workshops are the main need of the community. The impact of a massive new office development will be to drive up all land, factory and housing prices in the area, and rents for commercial and industrial premises. Since the Committee has completed its deliberations, it has been announced that there is to be a complete redesign of the redevelopment proposals for Spitalfields market, so that it will include the City's first major shopping centre, incorporating new developments of some 250,000 to 300,000 sq ft. How this additional building is to be fitted into the Spitalfields market site, and how it will square with the proposed new shopping centre in the Whitechapel road I do not know.
Of course, office development is the most lucrative form of land use in London today, but while we must cater for our office needs, it is entirely wrong, particularly in hard-pressed inner city areas, to give them an overriding priority over housing and other community needs. Offices do not regenerate inner city areas; they simply create islands of self-contained activity and prosperity in otherwise rundown areas. I believe that the main focus of inner city regeneration should be meeting the needs of the people in the areas concerned.
The Government's view, by contrast, is that the needs of local residents should be secondary. Believing as they do in the trickle-down theory, their primary aim is to bring into inner city areas islands of office development and high-priced accommodation. That may change the physical aspect, and the social composition of the area immediately concerned, but it does little or nothing to solve the problems of the wider area in which redevelopment has taken place.
For all these reasons, I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and perhaps some more open-minded Conservative Members to join me.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to give an indication of the Government's view of the Bill.
The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the proposals in it. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has the responsibility for wholesale markets, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, nor my Department has any outstanding points on the Bill. In the usual, conventional way, the Government are taking a neutral stance on the Bill.
It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. It may be helpful to the House if I say just a few words about the planning issues relating to the development of the existing Spitalfields site. The planning application submitted by the Spitalfields Redevelopment Group to redevelop the site of the existing market was approved by a policy sub-committee of Tower Hamlets council on 7 September 1987. The application was not referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment because the council did not consider that it constituted a departure from the development plan. My Department did not receive any representations asking that the application be called in far public inquiry.
Once planning permission has been granted, the Secretary of State has no further locus. I understand that local people will derive some £20 million-worth of benefits from an agreement that was reached between the developer, the City of London corporation and Tower Hamlets council. In the circumstances, I hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Shore: The Minister says that no representations have been made about calling in the application, but I and other people in Tower hamlets wrote, and received a not unusual reply fom the Secretary of State saying that it was not an appropriate matter for his intervention, and that it should be decided locally.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: No evidence has been produced since Second Reading to show that there is anything wrong with this market that it is not fairly simple to put right. One thousand people are employed in this flourishing market, which is developing new areas of wholesale food sales, so the market is expanding.
There are 32 flats above the market and 50 people live there in low-cost dwellings. It will be very hard to find housing for them, as the housing waiting list in Tower Hamlets has 20,000 people on it, and there are many homeless people.
Several groups who have petitioned against the market, as my right hon. Friend says, have been given sweeteners enabling them to withdraw their petitions, but for the ordinary residents of Spitalfields, the contrary is true. There is no benefit whatsoever and if the market is demolished they will lose a source of ethnic food of the kind that they need, and they will have to travel a long way to buy their supplies.
The development that will take its place will produce very great disadvantages. There is nothing in the Committee stage of the Bill to show any guarantees for the


protection of local industries, which employ local people. Local industries, such as the leather and garment manufacturers, will be put at risk. Increased land and property prices will result in local tenants suffering, as is clear from other areas where similar developments have occurred.
Open space is at threat. I welcome the verbal undertaking by Tower Hamlets that a substantial portion of Allen Gardens will be retained, but who will decide what is "substantial"—in an area where there is need for at least double the amount of open space that exists at present? Losing some of it is regrettable. Even now, a number of pocket handkerchief-sized parks and gardens in Tower Hamlets, previously designated as public open spaces—which are extremely important in an area in which 85 per cent. of the population lives in apartments—are under threat and in the process of being offered to developers.
Their disappearance would turn the whole area into the type of concrete jungle that exists in New York. Flat-dwellers will have nowhere to walk the dog or take their children to play or find a spot in which to sit in the sun and get a breath of fresh air when they have an hour or two to spare. Any loss of parkland and open space is extremely serious in this part of the world.
The future of this multicultural, multiracial community depends on the Bill being defeated. Three Georgian cottages were listed in the area. Two of them were demolished last year. This arouses fears that the special dwellings that were occupied by the Huguenots, houses with large windows designed to let in the light so the silk weavers could work, the mulberry trees and all the traditional and historic ambience of the area will be destroyed if the development goes ahead.
The real reason for doing away with the market is to make room for this development, which will be mostly office space. There will also be shops and a shopping centre which will compete with other shopping centres in the area and which the local community does not need. Clearly, the Bill will provide an opportunity for a lot of profit to be made, and to hell with the local community.
Although I oppose the Bill, I would support proposals which put Government money into the area. I accept that much improvement could be made, but that improvement must involve the local workshops and the provision of affordable dwellings and training for local people, so upgrading the area and improving the health of the people and their living conditions. The Bill will do none of that. It will blight the local community.

Mr. Ron Leighton: We are tonight dealing with the important issue of the redevelopment of a large part of the east end of London, an area in which some of us live and represent in the House. This should have been dealt with by way of a proper public inquiry and not by the private Bill procedure. Indeed, it is an abuse of that procedure. This is happening too frequently and we must register our protest about it.
On Second Reading, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, I referred to the pitiful sum of £50,000 that was being

earmarked for training. At least that has been trebled. It will be spread over a five-year period, with an extra £500,000 being made available. It would be churlish of me not to welcome that additional money, even though it is still not enough.
I want to consider the community gain—the "public gain" as it is called in the United States—which should be obtained from this type of development. It is clear that the gain to the community in the area is not enough. I chaired a Select Committee which went to America to examine developments of this kind there, the home of free enterprise and capitalism. I shall compare the practice there with the way in which this development is planned for in the east end of London.
The market will go and something will be put in its place. Who will benefit from that? Megabucks—hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds—will be made out of this development. How much of that will go to the local residential community of about 8,000 people? Many others live in the surrounding neighbourhood. A proper public inquiry should have examined the impact on the area. There has been no proper examination of all the issues involved.
Across the border is Canary wharf, which is now a mini-Manhattan. It is a £3 billion to £4 billion project. But again, there was no proper inquiry. The same is happening at Spitalfields.
The fact that Spitalfields is a market acts as a depressant on the price of land. With this development, the value of the land will rocket. Across the border is Wapping, where land is now worth £20 million an acre—simply because this development is property-market-led.
Land let for workshops fetches about £3 a square foot. Land let as offices in London fetches about £50 a square foot. That is the sort of money about which we are speaking. Land used for industrial purposes is worth between £3,000 and £4,000 an acre. In this area, the land will fetch perhaps £20 million an acre if it is devoted to offices and luxury housing, as it surely will.
That results in small businesses being squeezed out. Indeed, we will tonight decide whether the small people, the small businesses, shall be squeezed out by rising land values. Because small businesses are on leases, their properties will go to the developers. That will eliminate the local community.
Many of them are Bangladeshis. Prince Charles recently visited the area and met the Bangladeshis in their small workshops. All of those workshops will be priced out of the market and they will have to go. But where will they go? The development will house banks, finance houses and insurance companies. The City of London will expand and incorporate the area.
Does anybody imagine that the Bangladeshis will get jobs in the banks and insurance houses? It is nonsense to suggest that they will. And considering the pitiful sums being made available for training, it is nonsense to suggest that local people will be trained to take up jobs in finance houses.
I question the theory that just any development is good. Some seem to think that local people benefit automatically from it. That is not so. It has not happened in, say, docklands, where the local population has certainly not benefited. Indeed, local people have lost out. There has been a growth of employment in the docklands area, but


it has not gone to the local population. In fact, the number of unemployed in that area is higher now than before the UDC was set up. The reason for that is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not go into reasons for that. We are discussing the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Leighton: What I am trying to explain is what will happen if we pass this Bill; an economic process will be set in train where land values are forced up, traditional industries and traditional occupations employing local people will be forced out. New sorts of firms and industries, all office-based, and service industries will come in which will bring in their own labour, and this will cause unemployment in the Spitalfields area. I am suggesting that if we pass this Bill tonight, instead of the residential community benefiting, it will suffer.
I would like to quote, if I may, a witness, Dr. Robin Hambleton. He is a senior research fellow at the school of advanced urban studies in Bristol and he was asked about the idea that any sort of development is bound to benefit the local people. He was asked:
Does regeneration inevitably improve prospects for the local residents?
He said:
Thanks to the major research initiative involving studies of several British cities carried out by the Economic and Social Research Council in recent years we know that a general rise in local economic activity does not necessarily result in a 'trickle down' of employment benefit to disadvantaged groups".
He referred to American research and concluded:
The key finding is that disadvantaged residents have great difficulty benefiting from economic regeneration. Indeed, low and moderate income people tend not to benefit.
That is the result of impartial research, and this is what is going to happen in Spitalfields. Planning permission will be given without any prior inquiry to this new development, and it will push up land values, or perhaps I should say land prices. What I am asking tonight is, who will benefit from that? Certainly the developers will benefit; certainly the financiers, many of whom will come from North America and Japan, will benefit. In other words, people from outside, and often people from outside this country, will benefit, but not the residential community; they will be squeezed out. The local community will be destroyed and will be worse off. I think that that is fundamentally wrong.
I would like to mention very briefly to the House the result of what the Select Committee saw when it looked at this sort of development in the United States.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can allow the hon. Gentleman to do that. That would lead us into a discussion of a much broader nature than that which is the subject of the Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Third Reading of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill rather than to urban regeneration or job creation in the United States.

Mr. Leighton: I defer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as ever. It is just a fact that we are dealing with the urban regeneration of this part of east London. We spent a great deal of taxpayers' money trying to find out about these things; how does one share the benefit? The hon. Member, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who is

present, might wonder how we share our knowledge with the House when we have an occasion like this if it is not in order. If it is not in order, I will not persist.
I shall just say this about the firm which is developing Canary wharf—Olympia York. We visited its project in New York, which is the same as its project at Canary wharf and it is paying a community gain of $1 billion to New York City—and I am glad the Minister is paying attention to this. He might like to look at The New York Times of December 27—I will only give one sentence of this—which said:
Battery Park City plans to contribute $1 billion to develop housing in New York City.
The same is true in Boston, where we found—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will have Baltimore, Hong Kong and everywhere else if we are not careful. If the hon. Gentleman pursues this line, I will have to allow others to put a contrary view. I think we must get back to Spitalfields.

Mr. Leighton: I stand rebuked, and extremely humbled and crestfallen. I must not persist in that line of argument, and I shall not. I will just say that we are so backward in this country that when this development takes place a fair proportion does not go to the local people, as in virtually every other country that I have visited and studied and I do hope that I will find an occasion when it will be legitimate and in order to give the benefit of this experience to the House. That is why, unless I am convinced of the community gain, I will vote against this Bill.
We are changing the nature of this area, and we are giving the benefits to financiers from outside this country, let alone outside this area, and to the developers, and we are not giving fair do's and an equitable distribution of the benefits to the people who live in that area, many of whom were born there. They are getting the rough end of the stick all the time. Their area is going to be developed; they will be spectators standing on the sidelines, watching the fruits of this development go to others. It is not good enough. This should be dealt with by proper planning procedures, not by an abuse of the private Bill procedure. This is not how we should do our business, and therefore, unless I am convinced by the hon. Member, I shall vote against thus Bill tonight.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I seek clarification, because if this Bill is to receive its Third Reading this evening, I would like to ask the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) some questions in relation to the Bill. Contrary to what he has said—and I listened very, very, carefully—there have only been some minor financial concessions but the Bill itself has not been altered, and the report by the Committee indicates that all the clauses contained within the Bill have been allowed. That obviously causes great concern.
The first point which has been referred to by hon. Members from this side of the House concerns the age and condition of Spitalfields market. I suggest that perhaps the promoters of the Bill should not have rushed in to demolish and transfer this market, but should have sought to develop the site. They should spend some of the millions of pounds in which the area is apparently awash and that the financial people in the City will make from the Bill if it is allowed its Third Reading.
I say that the present market should stay on this site. One can look around the City of London and see many famous landmarks disappearing because the money market is building monstrosities which are neither beautiful to look at nor pleasing on the feet as one walks the concrete corridors within them.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, come from a town which has a famous market, the Doncaster market, which Doncaster council has spent a considerable sum of money upgrading to ensure that the market town meets the requirements of the people who live there. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to the financial benefits to some residents from the Bill. A hell of a lot more money could have been obtained for them. If the people who are to be affected were to gain the most financially, I could support the Bill, but the local people will not benefit as much as those who make a killing from the redevelopment.
If old age and poor condition are the criteria for demolition, the churches should be looking for safeguards. Many churches in London are old and require money. Are we to demolish those and allow high rise flats and offices to take their place for the lads who are making a killing in the City's money markets? Certainly the poor people will not be able to afford the accommodation that will rise from the ashes if the Bill goes through.
We should consider the character of the City of London. If the market is demolished, no matter what replaces it, some of the City's character and flavour will disappear. Character and flavour are important ingredients in London's finances. People who live and work in London depend upon tourists, and an old place full of character and charm will attract tourists a damn sight more than a modern clean market.
Even at this late stage, the promoters should consider spending the money that they intend to spend on the promotion of offices and high-rent accommodation on improving the poor quality facilities about which the Bill talks.
Doncaster, as you know Mr. Deputy Speaker, has an excellent market. We would hate to think that that market was to be shifted to Bolton. Doncaster would lose its character as a market town. One could draw a similar conclusion from the Bill. If Spitalfields market moves four miles as the crow flies, it will lose some of its charm.
I had a look at the map in the Private Bill Office because I was interested to see where the new site would be. The map did not show exactly where the old site was in relation to the new site, but looking at the new site I was filled with apprehension. The Bill contains none of the safeguards that I would want to see if the Bill related to my area.
On one side there are some marshalling yards. We all know that railways attract children. Mams and dads take their children to the market. It is suggested that there will be only one entrance to the proposed site compared with the many roads leading into the present market. If, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate would have us believe, the market is crowded on market day, there will be children. Will an adequate fence be maintained to ensure that those children do not wander onto those marshalling yards with the resulting problems and even fatalities?

What financial provisions are there to compensate any child or adult who is injured as a result of the proposed market being so close to the marshalling yards?
On another side of the proposed site is the river, which also means danger. How many deaths will occur if there is not adequate finance for a fence to protect children from the river? Given my anxiety about that, which I hope the hon. Gentleman shares, why is there no provision in the Bill for adequate fencing of the market's perimeter?
The single entrance into the market is also a matter for anxiety. Will there be adequate car parking? I see nothing in the Bill about the provision of such a car park. Will cars be parked on the roads in the immediate vicinity? Again, we come back to the dangers of the marshalling yards and the river. There is nothing in the Bill about the number of cars that will have to be provided for if the new site takes off in the way that is expected.
Such matters will not affect the Bill's promoters. Having moved the site and passed the market to another council, their obligation is finished. They will then proceed to build the office blocks and the high rent or high price flats. Is that in line with the thinking of a certain gentleman who lives down the road, who has passed a number of comments on the way in which architects are spoiling the character of London?
I thought that the Minister might have expressed some anxiety about the lack of details in the Bill about what will happen to the new site. The gentleman down the road is obviously concerned, as I know the Minister is. However, he made no reference to that in his short contribution at the Dispatch Box.
The demolition of two Georgian cottages has been referred to. Not all Labour Members are philistines. We welcome the old charm and love that the craftsmen of old gave us, which is obviously part of our heritage that we should be seeking to protect. The Prime Minister herself talks about protecting our heritage and I look forward to hearing her oppose the Bill.
Clause 5 says:
accommodation within the new site will so far as reasonably practicable".
Who decides what is practicable? Is it the owners of the site? If so, they will say, obviously, that it is reasonably practical, that they have met the terms of the Bill and that, therefore, it can go to the other place. Anyone who disagrees is left to make a decision about whether to go to the courts, which will decide whether the owners are correct in making that assumption. However, how many owners or tenants of market stalls can afford to take on the local authority or the people with big business interests? They do not have the money to take people to court, given the high costs of taking a case through the legal system. The Bill should have provided that if a dispute occurred, the method of taking it to arbitration was one that was fair for both sides. That would have cost far less than seeking redress through the courts of the land, as the Bill provides.
Other hon. Members have referred to compensation. Far more compensation could have been offered by the promoters of the Bill. Although one talks of millions of pounds of compensation, the people who live in the area will suffer the monstrosities that seem to be the norm. The promoters of the Bill received some bumf from the parliamentary agents this morning that made everything about the Third Reading of the Bill appear rosy. There are many other points in it, but I do not wish to delay the House too long.
If Conservative Members are interested in contributing to the debate, perhaps they will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and tell us why they think that the Bill is good for Spitalfields. I have heard no arguments from Conservative Members about why the Bill should proceed, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate will answer some of the points that we have raised. I do not know what benefits will go to the area of the present market other than to the people who will make a financial killing if the Bill receives a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 53.

Division No. 48]
[8.23 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkinson, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gregory, Conal


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Cartwright, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Heddle, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James


Cohen, Harry
Hordern, Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irving, Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
Kilfedder, James


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fallon, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knapman, Roger





Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Riddick, Graham


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Terry
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Sir David
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Paice, James
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Jeremy Hanley and


Redwood, John
Mr. Peter Rost.




NOES


Barron, Kevin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McAvoy, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
McFall, John


Callaghan, Jim
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Morley, Elliott


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Don
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Doran, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L.


Flannery, Martin
Primarolo, Dawn


Flynn, Paul
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Galbraith, Sam
Rooker, Jeff


George, Bruce
Sheerman, Barry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hardy, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hinchliffe, David



Holland, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Janner, Greville
Mr. Martin Redmond.


Leighton, Ron

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Discussion on the rapid transit system to serve the city of Bristol in the county of Avon in order to overcome the inexorably increasing problems of traffic congestion has been continuing since at least 1980. In that year, a metropolitan railway system, similar to that established in Newcastle, was proposed for Bristol and its hinterland by a number of those who are now in turn associated with the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill No. 1.
The original concept foresaw the linkage of much of the present railway network in Avon, with an underground section that would serve the expanding business and commercial area in the centre of Bristol. Although widely admired, the concept made little progress, since it relied entirely on the public purse for the subscription of capital through the taxpayer and local authority ratepayers, both for construction and for subsequent operation. An important statement had nevertheless been made—that a major contribution to improving public transport in Avon could be achieved only by a radical transformation of the railway network which no longer addressed itself to the necessity of serving the rapidly expanding commuter traffic to and from the city of Bristol.
Bristol has one of the highest levels of car ownership of any urban area of the United Kingdom, but equally, it suffers from the inadequacy of the road infrastructure and the inability to increase it without indulging in major central area road construction, which would be prohibitive on both cost and environmental grounds. It is also a fact that the majority of those living in the Avon travel-to-work area also work within the boundaries of that area. That makes the county of Avon an unusually self-contained economic unit. However, it also imposes enormous additional pressures on the transport infrastructure which the local bus operators, despite imaginative developments of their system, are unable wholly to satisfy in competing for road space, they are also the victims of increasing congestion.
Since 1980, the economic progress of Bristol and Avon has not only reflected the increasing prosperity of the nation as a whole, but in many respects has outstripped it. That is due to the excellence of the mainline railway and motorway connections with the captial and with other parts of the United Kingdom, the development of Bristol as a centre for the financial services industry and the increasing concentration on high-technology industries, clustering around long-established and prospering companies such as British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, which continue to form a major manufacturing base in the region. As a result, the outlying districts of Woodspring, Wansdyke, and Northavon have shown substantial population increases, one feature of which is the establishment of virtually a complete new town, Bradley Stoke, on the northern outskirts of the city of Bristol.
It may confidently be expected that the economic development of Bristol and Avon will continue, given those many favourable circumstances that naturally benefit the area. However, the problems of that success, notably that of traffic congestion, also continue to grow apace. Unless confidently and effectively addressed, they

will not only threaten to break that expansion, but impose ever increasing penalties of pollution and environmental decay.
As a major regional capital, Bristol ought not to face such problems without a solution and that, in essence, is the concept behind the rapid transit system now proposed. The network proposed is similar to that first considered in the Avon metro proposal, but the technology of achievement has altered radically, due entirely to state-of-the-art development of modern, street-running light rail systems. The House will be aware that it has already approved such systems for Manchester and Sheffield, a Bill to establish a new network in the west midlands has now been deposited and there is active discussion of light rail networks for Edinburgh, Cardiff, Plymouth, Leeds, south Hampshire, Nottingham and a number of other important locations in the United Kingdom.
All those systems, including of course that in Bristol, will be similar to modern urban light rail systems which are a significant and important element of public transport on the continent, most notably in West Germany, France, Holland and Belgium. Even in the United States, the bastion of the motor car, light rail networks are undergoing a dramatic and highly successful revival; throughout the year, some 20 such systems are proposed or inaugurated. It is a major growth industry which offers considerable attractions for the British railway equipment manufacturing industry, once it has achieved expertise through shop window developments here at home. The opportunity so to create new job opportunities in the manufacturing industry must not be under-estimated. Equally, there is a warning that, unless British companies enter that expanding market, it will be lost entirely to overseas competitors.
Nor should the environmental aspect be overlooked. The demand that the anticipated 5 per cent. per annum increase in road traffic will create cannot be accommodated without a considerable impact on the environment in its broadest sense. The accommodation of necessary roadworks would have a devastating effect, and the related required parking provisions would be unacceptable both in land take and in its visual and economic impact. Additional roads create additional traffic. Development would be forced outwards and the attack on the green belt intensified. The so-called freedom of the private motorist cannot be satisfied without enormous cost, a cost which is too great. The pollution factor, despite an increased consumption of unleaded petrol, will also have an impact. Currently, the level of nitrogen dioxide emission from car exhausts in Bristol city centre is more than twice the recommended EEC limit.
The promoters of the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill No. 1 seek to establish, over a number of years and with a series of Bills, a complete network serving much of the populated area of the county of Avon, the essential feature of which is the intention to supply direct and rapid access to the centre of Bristol. That is something that the existing rail network, frozen in its final development at the end of the last century, cannot achieve, but which a modern light rail network can accomplish swiftly, effectively and economically.
The Bill seeks to reopen and convert a length of railway first opened in stages between 1867 and 1906, which has carried no traffic, apart from occasional steam specials, since 1981. The route parallels a wholly inadequate road,


the A369 from Portishead to Bristol, whose entire length can be consumed by a traffic jam at peak hours and which, even at off-peak times, constitutes ineffective access to the centre of Bristol.
Protests at traffic delays encountered by the people of Bristol are now a major feature of local authority meetings. The situation is worsened by the existence of a major traffic interchange on the M5 Exeter-to-Birmingham motorway, which Avon county council and the Department of Transport now consider to be greatly overloaded. The reopening of this single route to a temporary terminus at Wapping wharf in the centre of Bristol therefore constitutes in itself a major contribution to solving the serious problem of traffic congestion. That view has not been contested. The House will agree that it makes no sense whatsoever for such problems to continue and to increase while a perfectly usable railway line lies moribund and there are those willing and able to return it to use.
In essence, this is a Bill not for a new railway, but for the re-establishment of an existing one. Further Bills, to be laid before Parliament, at the foreseen annual intervals as currently provided for, will seek to extend this Bill by means of a street-running section crossing the centre of Bristol to link Wapping wharf and Temple Meads. Redundant railway infrastructure will be incorporated to strike north through Horfield to Filton and the new town of Bradley Stoke, while, to the east, another former railway route will be re-established to bring access to parts of Kingswood and then to Yate, where there will also be a street-running section to serve the centre of the new town area.
Further routes will aim to serve south Bristol and the area which have recently been incorporated, with parliamentary approval, in the new urban development corporation for Bristol. Advanced Transport for Avon, promoter of this and subsequent Bills, has also expressed its desire to serve the Avonmouth area and the city of Bath, whose particular traffic problems have now exceeded manageable levels.
Financing is crucial. The Bill—the first of its kind to come before the House for many years—seeks to establish a public transport system within the private sector. Projections obtained from expert consultants show that the proposed system, including, in isolation, the route for which powers are sought in this Bill, can be operated profitably without recourse to public subsidy of running costs, and undertakings that no such subsidy will be sought have been offered to Bristol city council and Avon county council which, quite properly, sought such undertakings. Such an undertaking was indeed given under the company's common seal to the county council last February.
The finance for construction will also lie heavily—indeed, predominantly—with the private sector. Advanced Transport for Avon proposes to demonstrate the long-known linkage between enhanced property values and the development of modern transport systems. This phenomenon of uprating in land and property values as a result of transport development was used to supply substantial capital to the British-constructed metro system in Hong Kong. It is being employed, in variant, in the Beckton and City extensions to the docklands light railway and will inevitably form a vital ingredient of future light rail developments in the United Kingdom, quite apart from Bristol. To establish access to these land values,

Advanced Transport of Avon will form a joint development company with appropriate development companies. The first of those agreements is now taking place, supplying not only opportunity, but also working capital for the development cost of the system.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In arguing the case for the Bill, the hon. Gentleman said that this is a first stage and a precursor to a number of developing stages, and that further Bills will be brought forward to give authority for, for example, street works. However, the financial memorandum to the Bill states:
Expenditure which may be incurred in the future development of the light rail transit sytem cannot now be quantified.
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the system can be developed, how can he do so without explaining where the money comes from to develop the system?

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgeable about the Bill for a Sheffield light transit system, will recall that in both that case and this, there is a progression. The promoters of these schemes, whether public authorities as in the case of Sheffield, or private company, as in this case, seek to bite off each little piece rather than seeing the scheme as one vast project, the cost of which would be huge.
This relatively modest proposal as a precursor of another Bill is a sensible way of progressing. I hope that, by the time we reach the later Bills, the first stages will be running and showing that the figures and estimates are truthful. I do not think that doing this piece by piece is a bad method; I hope that, once we have convinced the House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, further Bills will progress with greater ease.
Through its expert advisers, Advanced Transport for Avon has established a series of sites which are available for development through the usual planning consent procedure—sites on which development would occur in any case. Instead of being exported elsewhere, the additional profits that will accrue from supplying modern transport potential to those sites will be put to work creating employment and prosperity for the communities of Avon and Bristol.
The basis for that is that the people who benefit directly from the system—the house owner, the shopkeeper and the property owner—will pay, through the development that they occupy, a large part of the capital cost. I hope that the House will pay particular attention to the phrases "the normal planning consent procedure" and "on which development would occur in any case". I would not be party to a Bill that sought to delve even further into the green belt. The House knows my views about development beyond it. The idea is to provide a railway line to a development; that development will then have an enhanced value; it is therefore possible to share some of that value with the railway system.
The employment potential involved in construction, operation and maintenance of the system must not be under-estimated as a vital economic factor for the future. A large amount of job creation, estimated at about 2,000 permanent situations—including direct and indirect jobs but excluding construction personnel—will take place when the whole system is completed.
The company will grant a licence for construction to companies with enough expertise and experience to undertake the work. I can inform the House that a


substantial agreement with a prime contractor is now in place with a British company of international excellence. In turn, that company will supply £3·5 million in development capital to Advanced Transport for Avon. The company will also license an operator, and has entered into an agreement with Bristol city council and Avon county council in respect of their considerations in the matter.
Advanced Transport for Avon has worked closely with the Department of Transport in formulating its plans, and with the help of our merchant bank advisers is now considering a preliminary application for access to section 56 grants which can be available for projects of this sort. Section 56 grants will, it is understood, be available to the light rail systems now approved or seeking approval in Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham. These discussions will continue, but the House will understand that nothing of substance can be said about the matter until the negotiations between the company and the Department of Transport are concluded.
It is, however, a well-established principle that section 56 grants are made available only when there is a demonstrable benefit to the community in general in terms of easement of traffic, reduction of congestion and pollution and a saving to the public purse in other direct respects, such as a saving of expenditure on infrastructure. In Avon alone, serious traffic accidents cost about £47 million a year, so even a modest reduction brought about by travellers switching from the roads to the Avon light rail transit will recompense the company's modest access to Government funds. Even in respect of this single Bill for a limited route, it is clear that a major reduction in traffic congestion and in the almost legendary delays for travellers between Portishead and Bristol will produce major benefits for the public as well as the private purse.
I mentioned earlier undertakings proposed or made between the company and Bristol city council and Avon county council. They cover a number of important aspects, among them the contributions that the company will make to the public infrastructure by the provision of funds for works associated with the light railway in connection with highways and footways. The sums involved are considerable, and the company has also offered to make a direct financial contribution to the county council to assist it with adjustments to its work load in progressing the light railway.
Throughout the prolonged negotiations over these matters, it can be shown that the company has responded generously and positively to the requests made by these two local authorities for a direct contribution to infrastructure costs.
Consultation is central to the success of a project of this kind. Unusually, and, in contemporary terms, uniquely, this public transport project is propelled by the private sector rather than by a consortium of local authorities as is the case elsewhere. Throughout the past three years, Advanced Transport for Avon has conducted detailed negotiations with the principal local authorities at officer and political level and through the respective parliamentary agents for the parties. About 76 other bodies have been consulted. Almost certainly uniquely, some of these negotiations have been conducted in public through the medium of television. There have been many public

meetings and addresses by the promoters to public and private bodies. No one could say that absolutely everyone has been wholly satisfied by what they have heard from Advanced Transport for Avon. Such a state of perfection, although desirable, is, in practical terms, impossible to achieve. Obviously, the time demanded by such meetings dictates that individuals and bodies who are directly influenced are the subject of detailed discussion, so discussions to date have mainly taken place with those involved in the first route and Bristol city centre.
As the project expands, the consultation process will widen correspondingly. As a private company, Advanced Transport for Avon possesses certain commercial confidences which it must retain to itself. That essential element of commercial and business life is capable of being misrepresented. In future Bills, the establishment of a street-running section across Bristol city centre will require the approval of two principal local authorities under the Tramways Acts. The company has energetically endeavoured to establish a route acceptable to all parties and to give greater time for that to be achieved. It was agreed with the county council last year to delay the deposit of the Bill to do with that section. That causes a certain delay to the project, with commensurate additional costs, but it can be cited as a clear example of the company's willingness to undertake and seek accommodation with the parties with which it negotiates.
As a further pertinent example, I cite the negotiations between the company and the Bristol port authority, which is anxious to safeguard the opportunity at some time in the future, to operate freight trains to and from its dock at Royal Portbury. That relatively new facility has no present rail link, but in the light of future traffic developments it may be necessary to establish one. The promoters have shown their willingness to accommodate such traffic within the standards and limits imposed by the railways inspectorate and have further offered at their own expense to lay the track between Bower Ashton junction and the projected junction near the Royal Portbury dock to a standard sufficient to bear the weight of modern freight trains, rather than the much lighter light railway vehicles.
That is a further and important example of the promoters supporting the public infrastructure from their own purse, as the Royal Portbury dock is owned and administered by Bristol city council. No doubt an increase in the traffic to and from that dock would benefit the people of Bristol, who continue to support that facility through their rates.
Public opinion has consistently demonstrated its support for the LRT project. That was confirmed in a MORI opinion poll, which demonstrated through the approved sampling system that 85 per cent. of the people of Avon want the light rail system introduced. That extraordinarily high figure confirms the desire of the local population to see effective action to reduce the increasing traffic congestion which afflicts the city and county.
There have, of course, been critics, and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has been one of them. However, she will be the first to confirm that she has had a number of meetings with the promoters and, on the most recent occasion, she was accompanied by representatives of the Labour party who sit on Bristol city council and Avon county council.
At different times, the hon. Member for Bristol, South has expressed concern on a wide range of points, which


include safety in operation of the system, the method of financing, consultation, whether the system will reduce congestion and whether the company intends to complete the network throughout. She has stated that the promoters were unwilling or unable to supply her with information on all or any of those points. An undertaking, however, on those matters has been given by the company to the county council during the proceedings in another place and before the commencement of proceedings in this House. Further undertakings now being negotiated with the two authorities, are confidently expected to lead to the withdrawal of holding petitions lodged by Bristol city council and Avon county council. The negotiations were detailed, complex and lengthy. As I have already stated, they are the subject of undertakings to be given under the company's common seal.
Given that those authorities bear weighty responsibilities in permitting the implementation of the light rail network, it is strange that they are satisfied, while the hon. Member for Bristol, South—who bears no such burdens—states frequently that she is not. If the hon. Lady is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we shall have the opportunity of hearing her detailed reasonings.
The costs of promoting the light rail scheme in Bristol have to date been entirely supported by private capital, from the promoters directly, and from those who have subscribed or contributed to the scheme in other ways. That again makes the project a unique venture, as an urban transport scheme of this kind has not been promoted by the private sector since well before the last war. In other words, those who have put up the money to promote the scheme have taken a considerable venture risk. Notwithstanding the many difficulties and problems encountered—not least the persistent objections of the hon. Member for Bristol, South—the promoters have continued to recruit both further support and capital and to reach important agreements for the financing and construction of the system. That demonstrates the faith of the railway industry, of individuals and providers of capital, that the project is sound and well-founded and capable of execution within the terms described by the promoters.
In the eight years since the original Avon metro scheme was unveiled, this is the only practical initiative which has emerged to overcome costly and increasing traffic congestion in the county of Avon. Critics who have condemned the scheme have yet to suggest any viable alternatives, or say how it is that they would develop a light rail system in Avon without a major contribution of private investment.
As the light rail industry gathers pace—first in docklands, and now in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham—it is abundantly clear to all open-minded people that it would be absurd for a major city such as Bristol to suffer complete traffic coagulation, with all the economic disturbance that that will incur, on the basis that public transport schemes promoted from the private sector should not be allowed to succeed for ideological or other reasons.
Of course a project of this kind involves risk—nothing in this world is absolutely certain—but the light rail project for Bristol and Avon is a brave, imaginative and courageous one, which has been set before the House by

public-spirited promoters, who are determined to show that there is a sensible and viable alternative to congestion upon the roads, which ultimately benefits no one.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I should like first to deal with a few points made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I must say that I learned no more from listening to his speech than I have learnt in Bristol in the past 18 months when negotiating with the company. Unfortunately, his speech was full of generalities about which most of us would find it extremely difficult to disagree—indeed, about which it would be foolhardy to disagree.
In summary, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare told us that there is a traffic problem in Bristol, which is indisputable; that something needs to be done about it—quite right; and that light rapid transit may be part of that solution. I have no problems with that; I completely accept it. He then told us that it will be paid for from private property speculation through the mechanism of land enhancement values, to which I shall return.
Much of what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare told the House has not been discussed in Bristol. His claim that the light rapid transit system ca .n be effectively, swiftly and economically built is not borne out by international and national research.
There is a crucial difference between the scheme proposed in the Bill and other schemes proposed for Manchester, the west midlands and Yorkshire. I have a copy of the Chartered Surveyor Weekly of 24 November, which lists all the schemes in the pipeline. All the schemes that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned or cares to compare with that proposed in the Bill are being put forward by public transport executives, which incorporate public and private funding, and not by private companies. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken and is attempting to mislead the House if he says that the scheme proposed in the Bill is exactly the same as the other schemes. I do not accept that.
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about financing, but before I deal with that I want to correct, in case there is any misunderstanding, what he said about the negotiations with the local authorities. Negotiations are taking place between the company and Avon county council and Bristol city council. The company has offered to give undertakings regarding the development of the project, which are being considered. I do not question that. I got the impression from the hon. Gentleman, however, that he was seeking to suggest that agreement had already been reached on those undertakings and that they were under company seal. At present, those undertakings are still in draft. They have not been formally exchanged and negotiations are still proceeding.

Mr. Cryer: I am following the debate with great interest and I want to make sure that I have got it right. Is my hon. Friend saying that the local authorities have not expressed support for the project, although they are negotiating with the company? Will my hon. Friend tell me the political character of the two authorities, as that would help the House? My understanding of the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is that somehow opposition to the project is based on political ideology and dogma.

Ms. Primarolo: I must make it clear to the House that the two local authorities have no problem in accepting the principle of the light rapid transit system. I share their support for that system. One cannot be against it, as it offers many opportunities.
The city council is Labour-controlled and the county council, a hung council, is in the hands of the Tories and the Liberals. Those authorities have raised a number of queries with the company and have sought undertakings from it. I understand that agreement is near, but negotiations have not yet been concluded and it is misleading to imply anything else.
The way in which the company and its associates have sought to promote the Bill has, at times, been less than honourable and sometimes sordid. Local publicity undertaken by the company has played on people's worries about the problems of Bristol's traffic congestion. Anyone who lives in Bristol, as I do, knows that it has great traffic problems. The lead levels are extremely high and sometimes it can take two hours in the morning to get from the villages around the outskirts of Bristol into the city centre. Clearly that is intolerable.
The company has told us that it will solve all the traffic difficulties by developing the light rapid transit system. That claim needs closer examination. The company has never made it clear to the people of Bristol that little substantive detail currently exists about the scheme. That lack of detail has been constantly highlighted by my detailed questions and the fact that the company has constantly hidden behind the principle of commercial confidentiality and the like. That is inappropriate.
Returning to the ideological point, I should like to read out a letter that was circulated by four hon. Members, including the sponsor of the Bill, to every Conservative Member. The letter is dishonest, untrue and designed to mislead. Some of the points it raises were dealt with in the speech by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. The letter is dated 24 January.

Mr. Wiggin: I wrote that letter and put my signature to it. I should like to know how the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) obtained it.

Ms. Primarolo: You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that I raised a point of order earlier today and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that he thought it had been put in his pigeonhole inadvertently. He did not know why it had been sent to him as he is a Labour Member.

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a private communication inadvertently goes to another hon. Member, is it right and proper that it should then be put into the public domain? I understood that there was a certain code of conduct about these matters, and I hope that you might give a ruling.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that when the matter was raised earlier today you took the view, which I share, that it was not really a point of order. As I recall, your rejoinder was to the effect that if letters are put around which misrepresent a position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) claims, she should have the opportunity to attack them tonight. That is precisely what she is doing.

Mr. Speaker: I did say that earlier this afternoon. I have no knowledge of such letters. I expressed the view that it might be rather interesting for the Chair also to have copies of them.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to seek to raise points of order because he is ashamed of a letter that has been circulated?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a question of shame at all. The hon. Member sought to ask through the Chair how the hon. Lady had obtained a copy of the letter.

Ms. Primarolo: I have already explained how I obtained the letter. It is dated 24 January and entitled
Avon Light Rail Transit Bill
It says:
This Bill is the first of a series that will enable Bristol to have a Light Rail System serving the City and its environs. Much of the track which will be used is existing line. A number of the far left on Bristol City Council are opposed to private enterprise providing transport services and for this and other reasons Dawn Primarolo is proposing to divide the House".
I shall pause to comment on that paragraph. It is wholly mischievious and without substance and I challenge the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to prove it if he can. It is accepted and well known throughout public transport executives that in the present climate private finance is part of the arrangement in public transport. That is a fact of life.
The letter continues:
Besides this political point"—
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was trying to make the ideological point that we are opposed to the Bill simply because it involves private enterprise. That allegation is a disgrace and I hope that he will withdraw it. I fail to see how that was a political point; it was just a straight smear. The letter continues:
similar proposals for other cities could be damaged if she is able to defeat us.
I relish the though that I might defeat them, but they have more votes than we have. Even I know that.
The implication of that paragraph will mislead Conservative Members if they do not look at it carefully. It suggests that the defeat of this Bill would have implications for a future Bill. That is contrary to the private Bill procedure. It is contrary to the way in which the House makes decisions. I hope that the people who receive that letter have worked out that that, too, was a dishonest and misleading statement.
The letter goes on:
We would be very grateful if you could find it possible to vote in support of this Bill. Signed, Jerry Wiggin, Michael Stern, Jack Aspinwall and Jonathan Sayeed.
Forgive me, Mr. Speaker—I cannot remember their constituencies exactly, so I have used their names.
I think that the letter is out of order in the sense that it is an unfair practice and once again brings the private Bill procedure into disrepute. We are supposed to be an open, democratic House. We do not need secret letters, we do not need allegations, we do not need smears. We need the matter debated here on the Floor of the House, openly, so that we know what is being agreed to.
I now turn specifically to the points that I want to make about this Bill.

Mr. Wiggin: At last.

Ms. Primarolo: It is not as boring as the hon. Gentleman was.
Any tiny company with a pipe dream, a good idea—and I am not disputing that this is a good idea—can draft a Bill which is given credence in Parliament under the private Bill procedure. This proposal is unusual, if not unique, in that it is from a very small company—I understand that it has one full-time employee and five company directors. Even with expert advice—we are not given references; we are just told that it is expert advice—it hardly forms the basis of, or represents, a company with a structure such as would fill one with confidence that it could run a public transport system.
The Select Committee which looked at the private Bill procedure—it is an inappropriate procedure, particularly for this Bill—says,
Nor is it accepted that members of the public suffer any disadvantage from the use of the Private Bill procedure rather than the procedure for planning inquiries".
The proposal needs very careful consideration under the planning inquiry regulations. The company holds meetings where slides and attractive pictures are shown and where there is an artistic presentation of what a tram system might look like, but that is not a consultation process; it is informing people what the company intends to do. Consultation is a two-way process. The company claims that these meetings have been held, but they have, in fact, been public relations exercises.
The Department of Transport must also come in for criticism over light rapid transit systems because, despite the fact that the concept of light rail transit has existed for a number of years, nothing has emerged from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory following its review of the light rail details published in 1979, and there are no Government policy statements or circulars specifically dealing with light rail at present. Because the company told me that it would be bound by legislation and by the guidelines that central Government had laid down, I wrote to the Department asking for details of operational specifications, including safety, which is an important concern, and I was told that guidelines were being prepared, that they were in draft form and would be available soon, but that they do not yet exist and are not yet available.
My idea of public transport is that it is cheap and efficient and serves the needs of the area in which it operates. We need seriously to consider whether this proposal fulfils those criteria. Turning to the specific proposals in the Bill and in an attempt to provide some background, I should mention that nearly two years ago a proposal was launched by Advanced Transport for Avon for a metro scheme. To begin with, rightly or wrongly, the people of Bristol believed that that implied a network which was at least partly, if not wholly, underground, and which would at a sweep solve Bristol's acute traffic problems. This public transport would be provided as a free gift to Bristol by a private company which would finance the enterprise by land enhancement values—that is, by property speculation. It is unprecedented anywhere in the world for a scheme to be totally financed in this way.
The literature produced by the company was glossy and attractive and accompanying rhetoric painted an easy, imaginative and—what was more—a free system.
Naturally, Bristolians received the proposals enthusiastically, admired the artist's impressions of what the trams would look like and welcomed this initiative to solve their traffic problems.
On closer examination, it became increasingly obvious that no substantive information about some aspects of the scheme—including the crucial financing—had been properly worked out. That was unlike the system in Tyne and Wear, where a detailed policy statement and three-year plan on how the scheme would be developed was produced before it went forward. It was also unlike the light rail transit system of Greater Manchester on which detailed information was produced. The project developers in Avon produced A4 or A3 leaflets and nothing else. Unfortunately, that was not comparable to those other schemes.
The scheme varies in one other crucial respect from Manchester, Tyne and Wear and the others where the proposals were put forward by public transport executives. ATA is a wholly private company, seeking, through a private Bill, the powers normally afforded to public transport executives.
I shall use an analogy to explain what I am trying to say about the Bill. Suppose that someone came to you, Mr. Speaker, and said, "I will build the house of your dreams for £100,000. Will you give me £100,000?" One would ask a series of questions before handing over the £100,000. One would ask of the person; "Are you a qualified architect? Are you a qualified builder? Do you own the land on which you are going to build the house? Have you got planning permission? Will I have all the services?" All of us would ask those and a great many other questions before passing over the £100,000.
A company is saying to Bristolians, "We can build you, through speculation, a nice, efficient and clean transport system that will considerably ease Bristol's traffic problems." That is to be applauded and the company should be congratulated because it has done what nobody else has done. However, it can hardly complain when we and our representatives say, "Hang on a minute: there are a few detailed questions that we need to have clarified before we enter into that agreement with you."
I should be wholly failing in my role as a representative if I failed to raise the following points. First, on the matter of finance, we were initially told that the scheme would not cost a penny of ratepayers' or taxpayers' money but would be financed by speculation. Then we were told that the developers planned to apply for section 56 funding from central Government and would finance the scheme through a combination of grant funding and bank loans.
Normally, section 56 funding is available to local authorities and public transport executives who match the finance in some way. In October, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the financing of light rapid transit railway developments. He gave the standard answer. I understand that the Government are reviewing section 56 funding, but it was said that it was normally expected that, when section 56 money was given, it was matched by local authority money. Quite rightly, that upset quite a few people in Bristol, including me, because it was not what we had been led to believe. Obviously, the Government had answered on the basis of the Department of Transport's circular No. 285 which states that light rapid transit systems might be eligible for section 56 funding under the Transport Act 1968.

Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the sponsor of the Bill is allowed to speak in the Chamber to the people responsible for the Bill. I thought that this was the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: That is not unknown. Those who are beyond the bar are invisible in the House, and I cannot see what is going on.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had reason to complain earlier about the noise and laughter when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was making her case. The Serjeant at Arms succeeded in quelling the noise but I hope that we do not have any more.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard any noise.

Ms. Primarolo: Things moved on. The Department of Transport told the company that it needed more detailed information. Lo and behold, it was in similar areas to those on which I had been asking questions. The company was asked to undertake an economic evaluation which would form part of its application for the grant before the detailed application could be considered. If it is necessary for the Department of Transport to know these things, the House and the people of Bristol should know them before they commit themselves finally to being for or against the scheme.
I understand that the economic evaluation will cover road congestion, pollution, amenity, regeneration, finance and ridership—the normal subjects set out in the circular issued by the Department of the Environment. The economic evaluation will be ready soon. Unfortunately, the debate has taken place before it is available. We might all have been wiser about the details of the company's proposals had it felt able to wait until the information was available.
The company has never demonstrated that it has sufficient finance to construct the entire scheme. It is inconsistent in its answers on the nature and extent of the public-private mix in finance. The latest development in the saga is that two weeks ago it was announced that two companies—Parkdale and VOM International—with ATA, the people asking for the Bill, have formed a third company called Avon Development Ltd., which will undertake property speculation to raise money to pass over to the company which wants to build the railway. That leads to confusion. What the two companies have not said is that they are so confident that land enhancement will raise considerable profit that they are prepared now to underwrite all the money for the project. They are not so confident that it is a good scheme. Presumably there is a financial risk.
The planned reliance on property speculation is unprecedented and would encourage the unwelcome escalation of property prices in Bristol, a city which is suffering sorely already because of housing and land price problems. It is said that the total scheme of which this is the first stage will cost £300 million to £400 million. I think that that is an under-estimate, but we will not discuss that now.
Let us think about how the money is to be raised. How much property development would there need to be in Bristol? Property companies will want to make their own profit and have enough left to give to the railway company

to build the system. If they wish to raise £300 million to £400 million the gross figure involved in property speculation in Bristol would be astronomical. That could have a profound effect on the city and its future development, raising difficult questions such as the development of green field sites and the green belt on the edge of the city. If that happened local and district plans would be breached. It is unreasonable to propose a project that raises all those questions without giving a clear understanding about how it will work.
We have asked whether the company can confirm that £14 million of public money will be sought in the construction of the No. 1 plan. Can the company say whether the money is being sought in Government grants that will not involve a contribution from the local highways authority? Can it also confirm that no local authority funding will be required for the costing and operation of the railway in future? If the company is not seeking public subsidy to meet the operating costs of the railway, it must know that its proposal is an international rarity. The subsidy that is usually required for the operation of light railways tends to be high. How can this company justify its proposals in relation to the studies that it has undertaken in Avon, including full ridership and revenue studies on a best and worst scenario?
We have asked many detailed questions, not because we want the company to tell us where the money is coming from, as we can understand the concept of commercial confidentiality, but this company seems to be unable to understand the ways in which it could tell us firmly that is has the money to complete the entire network. The advice given to me by experts shows that the first part of the system means nothing on its own, and it must be taken as part of an integrated transport network in the city.
I commented earlier on certain development problems, including the contravention of the green belt and other planning policies. We have asked the company frequently to explain clearly how the proposed land enhancement will work, how the land value will be liberated to pay for the project and its possible effects on the future of Bristol's environment. Bristol is a beautiful city and intends to stay that way. While I represent one of its constituencies, I shall certainly fight the proposal to allow unfettered property development across the city, whether or not it provides a free addition to our transport network. The price is too high for us to pay.
There has been rumour upon rumour about how the company would be financed. At the beginning we were told that it would be done by a rail consortium. Then we found that the consortium was just one railway enthusiast, who claimed to speak on behalf of many people, but did not. That scheme fell by the wayside. Next, we were told that the finance would be raised through loans, then grants, and then a combination of loans and grants. Then we returned to the idea of land enhancement. Now we are considering a proposal by this new company. It is unsatisfactory to proceed in this way in an area as crucial as public transport.
We sent the proposals to Mr. Barry J. Simpson, who is our main expert adviser, and who has given me support and advice. He is a planning and transport consultant and has done national and international comparisons of this kind of scheme. We asked him for his opinions on the proposals, which give us the most up-to-date information.
The company does reply to letters and provides some information, and we have regular discussions about the matter.
On traffic congestion, Mr. Simpson says that the revenue implications of the number of people the company expects to use the system is on the low side compared with other systems and that that makes the cost very suspicious. All other urban rail systems with that kind of ridership level—that is, the number of people who decide to leave their cars and go on the trams instead—require heavy public subsidy. He goes on to say that evidence from other light rail networks shows that a light rail system by itself does not have a significant effect on road traffic congestion. While some motorists are persuaded to use the rail instead of their cars, other car users seem to replace them; perhaps other members of the family use the car which has been left at home. Some cities, such as Marseilles, which has had a metro system of this type since 1977, still have terrible traffic congestion, and others, such as Gothenburg, Bremen and Munich, have used light rail as an opportunity to address a whole series of measures relating to traffic restraint and the environment.
It requires an integrated, co-ordinated response by all concerned with the provision of public transport to solve the problem of congestion and that certainly applies to the city of Bristol. That means co-ordination between the city council, the county council, the company promoting the Bill, the bus companies, British Rail and organisations such as the Civic Society, Cities for People, Cycle Bag and Transport 2000.
Those various organisations must meet and work out an integrated, complementary system of buses, car restraint, trams and pedestrianisation. Having done that, they should bring forward proposals of a similar nature to the Tyne and Wear system and others that have been shown to be successful. The House would then probably give a speedy passage to the enabling measure. But that has not happened in this case.
The evidence is that other networks of this type have not made a significant difference to traffic congestion. The company has continually been asked to substantiate its claim that traffic congestion would be solved by the scheme. It has not done that.
Various questions about technical evaluation need to be asked, but time does not permit me to do that. However, I point out that we are talking of a system that runs on roads when it goes through the city and on overhead cables with gantries. We must note clearly the implications, including the construction time, the traffic disruption during construction, the frequency of running and what would happen if this private company decided at any stage that it no longer wished to run a private metro system in the city of Bristol.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend believe that the local authorities' reservations about the project arise because of the method of financing the construction by bank borrowing, as explained in the Bill? For example, if the company overreached itself and was forced into liquidation, perhaps after interfering with highways to facilitate construction, the local authorities would have to pick up the bill and bring the highways back into proper use.

Ms. Primarolo: That is another question to which I do not know the answer. Central Government, through the

local authorities, might have to take over the scheme or remove the whole system from the roads of Bristol. My hon. Friend has raised one of many technical problems that I do not have time to develop.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke of employment, and in that connection one must consider the question of safety. As the hon. Member pointed out, the company will not run the system. It will be licensed to other operators and part of that contract will include a percentage of profit—we understand 5 to 10 per cent.—that will go directly to the holding company, ATA, to pay off its bank loan. So the operators will have to make a profit for themselves, pay their workers and pay a subsidy, a direct payment, to ATA.
I asked the company for its criteria in those licences so that I could see what measures were involved. It sent me vehicle specifications for the trams. Interesting though vehicle specifications are, they do not form the basis for criteria on the very serious considerations of who is entitled to operate a system and under what guidelines they will be expected so to do.
We have seen many problems caused by the pursuit of profit affecting safety on public transport only too recently, and we know full well that there is a very delicate balance between making something economically viable and spending the money that is necessary to make it safe for the public.
I heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare say on the radio this morning that this project would create 2,000 jobs. I think that the Labour party will win the next general election, but Conservative members do not agree with me. Just because I say it does not make it true, and just because the hon. Gentleman says without proof or detail that 2,000 jobs might be created does not make it a reality, and it plays on the fears and worries of people who are desperate for work to suggest that this scheme would at a sweep create 2,000 jobs and that the only reason they have not got them is because I have the audacity to try to question the company on its intentions, its backers and its security.
A private company is being given the status of a public transport executive with compulsory purchase powers and all the other powers of a public transport executive. That is very important. We need to look carefully at whom Parliament gives the authority to run public transport and to make sure that nothing is left to chance. I am not saying that the company is not capable of running the scheme; I am saying is that it needs to answer some questions before we can form an intelligent judgment on whether it can run the scheme.
The safety arguments are linked to the accountability arguments, and it is vital that all the details of the scheme are in the public domain so that they can be properly discussed and considered. If the company's finances are unclear and the project goes ahead with tightly drawn financial criteria, it will not always be possible to guarantee safety, and we should be aware of that before we give the authority to proceed.
As I said earlier, international research shows that light rapid transit systems need greater public finance, both capital and revenue, or private finance and are more expensive than any other type of public transport system. We may be prepared to pay that price because we believe the system is superior to buses, and certainly there is a strong environmental argument about lead pollution and the problems of the city of Bristol to support that.
We are talking about establishing that accountability and control from the beginning. Parliament cannot make a decision on behalf of the people of Bristol about this scheme until we have all the information from the company and until the people of Bristol have had an opportunity to comment on all the consequences of this Bill.
It is undeniable that Bristol's traffic congestion is appalling and that light rapid transit systems may well be part of the solution, but we must be sure that the traffic problem is not inadvertently made worse by our supporting a scheme that has not been properly worked out.
The company has initiated discussions with various authorities. It is unfortunate and regrettable that the local authorities have not done that before in moving forward, unlike other local authorities. There are many reasons for that, but I shall not go into those now.
There is no short cut for deciding matters of public transport. Parliament must have the relevant information. It is legitimate for us to ask for that. Hon. Members should not face a barrage of misrepresentation and abuse. I have been told that if the Bill fails I will be to blame for Bristol's appalling traffic problems. Such accusations should be firmly rejected by the House. We should say that, while wanting to solve Bristol's traffic problems, we will not be bounced into a shoddy decision simply because something sounds like a good idea. Therefore, I ask the House to vote against the Bill.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be helpful if I intervene to give a brief idea of the Government's view on the Bill.
This is one of a number of private Bills providing for new light railway systems, or modern tramways, in our major cities. Light rail has many potential advantages—for example, faster speeds than buses where segregated from other vehicles, but with the flexibility to go on-street and to cope with gradients and curves beyond the capacity of conventional railways.
Therefore, we welcome the way in which transport planners in many urban areas are now examining what light rail has to offer. It can bring considerable benefits, as it has done in the case of the docklands light railway. Parliament has already legislated for the Manchester MetroLink project, which was promoted by the Greater Manchester passenger travel executive.
Now Advanced Transport for Avon is seeking to take an important new step—the initiation as well as the development of a light railway by a private company. It is expecting finance from the improvement in land values which rail access would bring.
In principle, the Bill is acceptable to the Government, and we have no points outstanding on it.
The Department of Transport provided finance for the docklands light railway and we have said that the Manchester MetroLink is likely to be eligible for grant. Advanced Transport for Avon has not applied for grant. If it does so, we shall look at its case on its merits. I cannot forecast the outcome of that tonight.
We welcome the private sector initiative on which the project is based. That accords closely with the

Government's wish to see the private sector involved to the greatest possible extent in the efficient provision of public transport. I hope that we shall see more such proposals before long.
I should add that we are satisfied with the railway's safety aspects as proposed in the Bill.
There are a number of petitioners against the Bill, and if their petitions are pursued they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of having expert evidence.
Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration of the issues involved.

Mr. Peter Snape: I listened with interest to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). She rightly said that similar Bills now before the House have been put forward by passenger transport executives. Understandably, she talked of the need for an intetrated and co-ordinated transport system in Bristol. I agree with her, but, regrettably, under the present Administration such integration and co-ordination is anathema. Each system is supposed to compete one with another—a transport mode unique in the western world and one that is already causing considerable problems in London as in other cities, which, if allowed to continue unchecked, will presumably cause the sort of problems in Bristol outlined by my hon. Friend.
There are four outstanding petitions against the Bill. I checked earlier today and found that there is still an outstanding point in the petition presented by Avon county council, but it is hoped that it will be resolved, thus rendering it unnecessary for the county council to take the petition before the Opposed Private Bill Committee. There are some outstanding problems that affect British Rail, especially about running rights for existing, virtually disused railway lines and their possible use for rail freight traffic at night. Again, it is hoped that those difficulties will be resolved before a petition is taken to the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South will know better than I about the detailed and protracted negotiations that have taken place with Bristol city council. Certain offers have been made and certain assurances have been given to the city council, which will be considered. The one other outstanding petitioner is a private steel stockholding company. It was originally offered an alternative site, which it accepted. Evidently, some difficulties with that site arose and an alternative has now been offered. Negotiations are taking place at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South discussed the problem of railway safety. That is uppermost in our minds when we remember the Clapham accident before Christmas. It is not for me to give my hon. Friend any assurances about that, and she will be aware that the responsibility for safety on the Avon system, as on any other railway system in the United Kingdom, will lie with the railways inspectorate of the Department of Transport.

Mr. Portillo: With the operator.

Mr. Snape: The Minister says that responsibility will lie with the operator, so it seems that the railways inspectorate of the Department of Transport will have no part to play in safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South is right, therefore, to express her fears and concerns; I should also express them officially on behalf of the Opposition. It has always been the custom for the railways inspectorate of the Department of Transport—or the Board of Trade before that—to be responsible, in any railway system, for overseeing the railway and seeing that safety regulations are in place and are carried out.

Mr. Portillo: indicated assent

Mr. Snape: I am grateful that I am getting a nod from the Minister that that will be the case for this particular system.
It is a pity that these matters—with which my hon. Friend has dealt so ably and thoroughly—were not debated and decided before Third Reading. Had they been, we might have been deprived of my hon. Friend's speech, but the Bill might have received a fairer wind. It remains to be seen whether the outstanding points to which I referred can be resolved before the Bill is considered by the Committee. I hope that they will be resolved and although, like my hon. Friend, I feel that it would have been infinitely preferable for public accountability to be involved in the Avon system, we are stuck whether we like it or not—and of course, we do not—with a Government who have a crazy ideology that states that every mode of transport must compete against the others.
Provided that the petitioners can be reassured, it seems that within the narrow parameters of that ideology a start will at least be made on a new transport system for the Bristol area. Given the amount of congestion in that city, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that an initiative—perhaps a more detailed and integrated initiative than the present one—is essential. However, perhaps we should put up with the half loaf that we have instead of having the proper system that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, myself, and all Opposition Members at least would like to see.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I rise to speak against the Bill on a number of issues but I shall be short and selective because that is necessary.
If a Bill is presented to this House, it should be correctly worded so that we can understand it. Parts of the Bill frighten me in so far as they relate to protecting individuals against legislation of this nature. Clause 14 states:
"The Company may"—
that word "may" is very important; indeed, I almost take "may" as being the opposite to "must"—
at its own expense, subject as hereinafter provided, underpin or otherwise strengthen any house or building within 30 metres of any of the authorised works, and for this purpose the following provisions shall have effect:—".
that the company may underpin houses, buildings or factories if it so desires. It may be right or it may be wrong to do so.
However, the worst part of these provisions for any individual who may be a houseowner are contained in subsection (c), which states:
If any owner, lessee or occupier of any such house or building, shall, within 10 days after the giving of such notice,

give a counter-notice in writing that he disputes the necessity of such underpinning or strengthening, the question of the necessity shall be settled by arbitration".
I repeat that only 10 days are given. How many hon. Members go on holiday for more than 10 days? I should think that the answer is many. I have gone on holiday many times for 12 days. If the Bill is to be seriously considered, we must consider the importance of giving a poor house owner only 10 days to answer the notice. The house owner might go to the beautiful Yorkshire coast of Scarborough for a fortnight's holiday, but this subsection means that he has no chance to appeal. The work will go ahead and his house will be underpinned, or anything that the company desires may happen, because the clause states "may".
The Bill is wrongly worded. It may have passed certain rules of the House and some examination, but on balance, I should not like to think that somebody might underpin my house within a period of just 10 days when I might be in Scarborough on a fortnight's holiday. I should be terribly hurt on my return and, being a Yorkshire lad, I might even lose my temper. The consequence would most probably be that the chap who underpinned the house would end up on the floor and I would end up in court. I should not like that to happen to anybody.
No hon. Member, of whatever political party, should accept such limiting wording. Indeed, many Conservative Members go away for three months' holiday. If they went away for that length of time, they might return to find their houses underpinned or even pulled down, without knowing anything about it.
However, it would be too late for them to do anything about it because it would have been done under an Act of Parliament. If that happened, those Conservative Members would come crying to us, saying, "We should have voted with you. We should not have allowed the Bill to go through."
Let us be fair—if a Bill of this description is introduced, it should at least be written so that everybody has a reasonable chance to object, through the law of the land, to the decisions that are made in this House. That subsection is absolutely wicked.
If we consider the Bill further, we come to clause 18 which deals with the extinction of private rights of way. I know that many Conservative Members and many of my hon. Friends do a tremendous amount of walking. It is a great sport in this country to go hiking with one's wife or family and to enjoy being in the countryside. There are ways of protecting the countryside under certain Acts, but this Bill will take away the right to go walking in the countryside and to push a pram down the highway. That cannot be right; it is almost immoral to take away the right of people to go strolling in the countryside, but this Bill would do that.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put.

That, at this day's sitting, the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 57.

Division No. 49]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alton, David
Aspinwall, Jack


Arbuthnot, James
Atkins, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Atkinson, David






Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Heddle, John


Batiste, Spencer
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Beggs, Roy
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Beith, A. J.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bendall, Vivian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hunter, Andrew


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Irvine, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jack, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Janman, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Bowis, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kilfedder, James


Bright, Graham
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Kirkwood, Archy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Knapman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lang, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Butcher, John
Lilley, Peter


Butler, Chris
Livsey, Richard


Buttertill, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lord, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Mans, Keith


Cartwright, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cash, William
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chapman, Sydney
Maude, Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Miller, Sir Hal


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Mitchell, Sir David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Cope, Rt Hon John
Neale, Gerrard


Cran, James
Neubert, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Devlin, Tim
Norris, Steve


Dorrell, Stephen
Paice, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Dover, Den
Pawsey, James


Dunn, Bob
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Durant, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Favell, Tony
Redwood, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fishburn, John Dudley
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Rowe, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Eric
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Franks, Cecil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Sims, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Speller, Tony


Goodhari, Sir Philip
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodlad, Alastair
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gow, Ian
Steen, Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stern, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Stevens, Lewis


Gregory, Conal
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Ground, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hannam, John
Summerson, Hugo


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Harris, David
Thorne, Neil


Hayward, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)





Tredinnick, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trippier, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Woodcock, Mike


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. David Maclean and


Waller, Gary
Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Armstrong, Hilary
Loyden, Eddie


Barron, Kevin
McAvoy, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
McCartney, Ian


Boateng, Paul
McFall, John


Buckley, George J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Maxton, John


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morley, Elliott


Cunningham, Dr John
Mullin, Chris


Dalyell, Tarn
Nellist, Dave


Darling, Alistair
Parry, Robert


Doran, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flynn, Paul
Ruddock, Joan


Galloway, George
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Graham, Thomas
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hardy, Peter
Walley, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hood, Jimmy
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Illsley, Eric



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Alan Meale.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill and the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Welsh: I shall now carry on to talk about the extinction of certain rights of way. I am not against changing rights of way. If this were a planning application, there would be discussion at planning level and, if the planners wanted to do away with one right of way, they would provide another one. That would be done, however, before the plans were accepted, which is reasonable. That is the correct planning approach. However, it is written in this Bill and, if it is passed, it will become an Act of Parliament and planning will not be involved. That is why I strongly object to Bills of this description, because they give planning permission in disguise. That is wrong. It is against good planning and local government.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill which has exactly the same powers—the powers to acquire land, to disregard recent improvements and interests, and to cause the extinction of private rights of way. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore vote against the Greater Manchester Bill?

Mr. Welsh: We are discussing this Bill, but I shall note the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Such matters should not be in any Bill. Plans should go to the planning authority and not to this House. It is laid down by this House that they should go through the planning authority. They should be considered in the correct way. After negotiations at planning level with planning officers—not elected members—the council should make a decision. I hope that, after such detailed discussion the scheme will go ahead. That is the correct way to proceed under the planning laws decided by this House.
These are not partisan issues involving the Government and the Opposition, but important issues that affect all of us. Clause 20 of the Bill relates to the acquisition of part of certain properties and subsection (2) says:
Where the land subject to the notice is part only of a house, building or factory, or part only of land consisting of a house, together with any park or garden belonging thereto
the person on whom that notice is served has only 21 days in which to object. Conservative Members could come back from the Caribbean, and we could come back from beautiful Scarborough, to find that we no longer had a garden because we were away for more than 21 days and were therefore unable to appeal against the notice. That cannot be right, but that is what the Bill says.
If the Bill is unamended in Committee, many Conservative Members will come back from holiday to find that their swimming pool has gone. Imagine going to dive into one's pool only to find it has changed into a railway track. The same could happen to the tennis courts. I am a keen vegetable man and I would not want anyone to interfere with them, but that could easily happen.
Some people go away for winter holidays. Many of our elderly citizens go away to Spain for two or three months in the winter. They enjoy the sunshine and they live a lot longer because of such holidays—all credit is due to them. I go to Spain for about eight days at Christmas and it is lovely to see the elderly citizens who stay there for two or three months. What would happen to them if the Bill went through? They would have no garden left.
I cannot accept the present wording in the Bill. It should be thrown out and a new Bill should be introduced. The present Bill is unacceptable to the people to whom we are accountable.
Similar Bills may have been put through years ago, but since the 1960s our society has changed. People go on longer holidays, so it is not right for the 21-day notice to be included in the present Bill.
Clause 23(1) states:
If the deposited plans or the deposited book of reference are inaccurate in their description of any land
the company may apply for a correction after giving not less than 10 days' notice. Such action would not be possible under normal local planning procedures. For a number of years I was chairman of planning, and if my officers brought plans to me before I went into a committee I always insisted that we had long discussions with those who had submitted them so that the best result was achieved, for the environment, the developer and the community.
If any of the information is wrong, a person has 10 days in which to alter it, but after that they can do nothing about it. What happens if people are on holiday? What happens to those people who are ill in the infirmary, who cannot comprehend any letters, let alone answer them? They may come back to find the description of the land that they occupy has been altered after 10 days. That cannot be right.
We have to examine the Bill a little more rationally and ask the sponsors to take back the Bill and rewrite it to give the kiddies and the lads and lasses time to look at it, consider it in more detail and appeal before any decisions are taken. For that and for other reasons, but mainly because of the reasons that I have described, I cannot accept the Bill. It is an affront to democracy and l do not think that hon. Members from either side of the House should accept a Bill written in such a way. I ask hon. Members to vote against it later this evening.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I speak objectively as a shareholder in a private railway. I have five £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I was chairman of the Keighley and Worth Valley Light Railway Preservation Society for 10 years and undertook negotiations with British Railways that led to the agreement to purchase the line over 25 years, and I was instrumental in ensuring that that railway was operated on the basis of democratic Socialism.
I cannot be accused of not supporting railways, but it is fair to raise a number of queries about the proposals. I am an enthusiastic advocate of railways, but I have to make sure that the proposals are soundly based so that, if the scheme gets into difficulties, it does not cast a reflection on other railway projects, which could happen.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) suggested that the Bill was the precursor of several, that it is a building-brick process and that the railway will be developed in steps towards an integral system with the extensions being authorised by future Acts of Parliament. However, I pointed out to him—he answered me in a most unsatisfactory way—that the financial memorandum contains no details about any financial projections that would help to justify the Bill as the pier on which the spreading bridge might be built. It states:
Expenditure which may be incurred in the future development of the light rail transit system cannot now be quantified.
That underlines the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) that there is a lack of detail. Basic details are required in such proposals.
The Minister said that we should hurry this part of the procedures out of the way and get the Bill into Committee. Committees considering private Bills are notorious earning areas for lawyers who do not go into detail as much as they go into length of time. I have never had the misfortune of being on a private Bill Committee, and I hope never to do so, but my hon. Friends who have been on such Committees tell me that it is not the best way of pursuing what is in effect a public policy Bill. It is interesting that, in the Division on the business motion, the Government turned out a fair chunk of the payroll vote. Not for the first time, the Government are pursuing public policy by means of a private Bill. They have done that on several previous occasions. They are getting the payroll vote whipped in to support a private Bill and that really goes against the grain.
Paragraph (4) of the preamble states:
It is accordingly expedient that the Company should be empowered to construct the works authorised by this Act, and to acquire or use the lands referred to in this Act, for the development of the first stage of such a system".
Therefore, the Bill is providing compulsory purchase powers. If the Bill were being promoted by a public body, those powers would undergo much greater scrutiny, because a public body is more accountable than the company appears to be under the Bill. It appears that an office and a secretary are running the company and a board of directors meets separately because the premises are not large enough. That is my impression.
Secondly, it is unsatisfactory to give compulsory purchase powers to a private body that will use them to sell

land at a speculative price to finance the development of the railway, because it cuts out the inquiries into compulsory purchase proposals which, for example, a local authority would be required to hold if it were embarking simply on the compulsory purchase procedure under existing legislation.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here from the beginning of the debate. The House has been discussing whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. We have just had a vote to allow business to continue after 10 o'clock. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) voted for business to continue. I have several questions that I want to ask about the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot ask them. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it would be in order for you to suspend the sitting for 10 or 15 minutes to allow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to do whatever he needs to do so that he can come back into the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the whereabouts of hon. Members is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Cryer: Planning consent will be required from the local authority, but there will be some pressure, once the Bill has been passed, for the local authority to acquiesce because of the scale of the proposal and, by and large, because everybody wants to see traffic congestion eased.
Of course, everyone says that a light railway transit system is bound to be an improvement and they are probably right, but to justify the Bill we ought to have more details than have so far been provided. We do not want this to founder because of the peculiar, indeed unique, method of financing the proposal, which could give rise to serious problems. As I understand it, the money to start the work is being provided not by the Advanced Transport for Avon company but by the contractor that it has chosen to build the line, presumably on a repayment basis later. According to the promoter, the construction company is providing some £3·5 million. It is a very unusual system whereby a construction company pays to construct something that it is employed to undertake by the principal promoting company.
I, too, am sorry that the sponsor is not here to take up this point and answer it to the satisfaction of the House—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who is speaking from the Strangers Gallery, is not in the Chamber.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare is not in the Chamber and is unable, therefore, to answer the questions that I am raising.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am happy to give the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) the assurance that when my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) returns, I will inform him of anything that has been said that is germane to the argument. It is unlikely that I shall be troubling him.

Mr. Cryer: That is helpful of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), although I do not see why he should sneer at the end. If he is saying that, having made


this offer, he is not going to bother, it is an arrogant affront to the House that he should present a Bill with the backing of the payroll vote and, when hon. Members seek information, fob them off with a sneer such as I saw just now. It is an affront to democracy and to the procedures of the House.[Interruption.] I do not know who said, "Get on with it," but it is very important that we should consider this seriously.
Would the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) like to intervene rather than shouting from a sedentary position?

Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman asked who had said, "Let's get on with it," to which my reply was, "Just about everyone."

Mr. Cryer: I see. The hon. Gentleman wants to rush legislation through using the jackboot heel of the payroll vote to crush Parliament. I sometimes wonder whether some Conservative Members carry boxes of matches in their pockets, intending to set fire to this place because they regard it as redundant. I do not like having to say this, but that is the arrogant attitude that some Conservative Members seem to have to this place.
The method of construction is somewhat curious. The promoter made it clear—and it is clear from the Bill—that the company will have to borrow from the banks. The promoter did not explain what sort of construction period is envisaged. What effect will the present high interest rates have on the project? They must surely have some influence on it. Will the company have to stretch the construction time from five to seven years, for example to cushion itself against soaring interest rates under the Government's present policy?
It is dangerous to depend so heavily on borrowing, because revenue will not come in until land is sold and land values have increased—something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desperately trying to stop. The Chancellor tells the House that prices are slowing down, and it is the whole point and purpose of the increase in interest rates to cool the economy, which is overheated and producing higher prices yet to succeed the Bill depends on the very reverse of the Chancellor's policy. The Chancellor is trying to control prices; the Bill depends on soaring prices to provide the finance for the venture. Tat is a very risky financial basis on which to place what is—in all considered judgments—a very important venture.
If, by any chance, the Chancellor's policies succeed, the alternative source of revenue—a system of what amounts to franchising or licensing—will have to be used. The company has to complete the construction to obtain the revenue from the licensed operators to meet the costs of borrowing. The Bill provides that a proportion of the charge to the licensees will be to cover interest on the money borrowed. That is a very curious system, as the company clearly cannot obtain revenue from the licensees until construction is already a good way advanced and there is a prospect of the licensees obtaining fare revenue from people using the railways.
It seems to me that there are potential dangers. Suppose that quicksand is discovered, or that the company has to construct major deviations to avoid sewage systems, which it is not allowed to touch under the Bill. Those are potential problems with an urban transport system. If the borrowing process is stretched over a number of years, any such difficulties in construction will mean heavier

borrowing and the possibility of the company getting into financial difficulty, particularly if the land that it is compulsorily purchased does not have the enhanced value that is necessary to meet the considerable costs—perhaps £3 million to £4 million in all, although they are not sums speculated on in the Bill. Sage opinion will have it that this is not a sound basis on which to enter the construction of a major civil engineering works, because such works have a nasty habit of proving costlier than estimated a nd producing construction snags that were only hinted at when a venture was first embarked upon.
Construction time is important when we consider the safety of the operation of the light railway and the volume of traffic using the roads. Major road works are envisaged in the Bill. Clause 26 and the ensuing clauses set out protective provisions to make sure that the construction companies follow a proper procedure of notification to local authorities about when they are about to embark on highway construction, deviation or whatever. That means that there will be severe intrusion into traffic flows to and from Bristol.
The promoters have not indicated for how long traffic flows will be interrupted. We have the right to know what calculations the company has made. If the Minister's point about the Committee dealing with these matters in detail is right, the promoters should have the information between now and the Committee stage. They should really have it in their pockets now, ready to be produced to inquirers like me. For how long will the citizens of Bristol have to put up with single line working, and so on? Will it be months or years? What places will be affected? The House should know, so that we are better able to make a judgment about the merits of the Bill and the shrewdness with which the promoters have planned the project.
There are temporary and permanent problems to be considered. There will be the intrusion of road works during construction, but there will also be permanent disruption caused by the level crossings that are authorised in clause 12. The laying of the rails may take only a few weeks, but the level crossings will be permanent. There has been comment from both sides of the House about the traffic congestion in Bristol, and the provision of level crossings is important.
Accidents have taken place at level crossings opera ted by British Rail. Clause 12(5) refers to "automatic or other devices". Does that mean automatic level crossings? I refer the House to the Hixon level crossing disaster some years ago, when a heavy transformer was being taken across a level crossing where the barriers were not linked to signals. A British Rail train, hauled by an English Electric type 4 locomotive, hit the transformer. The transformer, weighing many tonnes, was carried several yards down the line with loss of life. That was in the early days of automatic barriers for crossings.
As a matter of operating safety, I prefer manned or womaned level crossings with interlocking signals between the gates and the signals so that a driver knows that, when the signal is released, the full gates are across the road, barricading the railway from traffic intrusion. The Bill simply says that the Secretary of State can authorise level crossings.
It would be handy to know what sort of level crossings the promoters have in mind, because there were several accidents in 1987 with half-barrier level crossings. Motorists try to dodge round them. I know that they should not, but we are talking about areas with heavy


traffic congestion, and there is pressure on motorists to take short cuts and get round safety measures. It is important to know whether there will be interlocking signals with barriers, and preferably gates, or automatic, remotely-operated level crossing signals with the gates not being linked to signals. This is a crucial matter, particularly as a great deal of traffic goes into and out of Bristol. I hope that the promoters will provide the information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South complained about the lack of detail. I was a little surprised at that, because of my activities in obtaining the light railway order and the transport order to establish the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in 1967 and 1968. We were required by the Department of Transport to provide a great deal of detail—including, for example, a register of all the curves on the branch line. We had to provide details of the bridges and abutments, the axle load that the bridges could provide and a register of the weights of rail. Presumably, on a new railway, there will be new rails.
The promoters say that it is envisaged that part of their railway will be linked to a dock, which will provide future freight services. I am all for the transfer of freight from road to rail, and I welcome that aspect of the proposal. But the biggest wagons on British Rail have an axle load of 22 tonnes. Is any detail provided to satisfy the Department of Transport that any bridge work and weight of rail will be sufficient to withstand such axle loads? Are the promoters, in their calculations for finance, taking into account the extra expense in such construction?
I can tell the House that some of the most damaging movements of wagons on the British Rail network are the 22-tonne axle loads, which have had some very damaging effects on bridges and viaducts.

Ms. Primarolo: The Bill proposes a railway that will go from Portishead into the city centre at Wapping wharf. In order to join up with the route identified in the proposed No. 2 Bill, which has not yet come to the House, a bridge is required. What is more, it will have to be built parallel to a swing bridge.
Bristol is an old port with an extensively used dock in the inner city. When I mention that there will be great difficulties in building that bridge, the company is silent. Our expert advice leads us to believe that the company has not properly taken into consideration these points about the cost and the technical points about the bridge.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for elucidating that point. I am slightly shocked that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare did not mention those matters. Had he done so that would have indicated to the House a determination to tackle the issues head on and convince the House, not by the payroll vote but by tackling all the problems seriously. That seriousness has been entirely absent from the hon. Member's elucidation of the Bill.
As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said during the 1987 general election campaign, it is not good for a Government to have too big a majority. He was right—although he was sacked for saying it—because instead of providing a sound and reasoned case, the Government simply rely on the payroll vote, on those

who are loyal anyway and on those who desperately want to join the payroll vote and are anxious to be here and to be noticed. That way of proceeding is not conducive to a healthy Parliament. It is far better for Ministers to have to argue their case and answer the sort of legitimate questions that we are asking. We are asking three questions not in any spirit of ideological antagonism but because my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South and others are concerned to ensure that any light railway transit system is soundly based financially and technically.
I welcome in principle the suggestion of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that part of this network should be used for freight, but several technical questions about the construction of the system remain unanswered.
It would have been pleasant if the hon. Member had said that all employees of the railway would have full trade union rights and that great consideration would be given not only to the safety of the public but to the health and safety of the staff. Generally speaking, if the standards of the latter are high, the standards of operation for the public are high.
Such an assurance would have helped those who fear that a private railway network might mean lower standards of employment, with poor wages and long working hours. After all, we have been discovering, for example, that while British Rail has majority union membership, private contractors can lower standards. That is a pointer to the Clapham junction crash. I shall not reach any conclusion, because the inquiry into that has not been completed, but signalmen installing signals near one of the busiest junctions in the world were working through the night, with torches, installing wiring.
It would have helped the House if we had been assured that such standards would not be allowed on this projected railway, and that one factor in ensuring decent standards of employment would be the right to trade union membership. While the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare may be intimidated by—or perhaps he supports—the Government's antagonism towards trade unions, he could have settled some of our doubts had he made the position clear.
I support the introduction of light railway systems anywhere in Britain—[Interruption.]—including in Bristol. One of my children attends Bristol polytechnic and I am fond of the city, having visited it many times. But that system must be financially sound, be part of an integral transport network and not be operating in an absurdly antagonistic competitive situation.
There must be a collective decision on how to solve these traffic problems. I want the problems solved in the most sensible and rational way, and a better way of doing that would be to have the initiative taken by the two local authorities—one a Labour-controlled local authority, and the other Tory and Liberal-controlled—and using their pivotal position to invoke, if necessary, the assistance of the private sector.
I would not exclude the private sector, but we should use the local authorities as the primary initiative to develop a liaison between all the other means of transport. It seems to me that, particularly where the local authority is responsible for the maintenance of the roads, it would make sense to have a much closer link during construction than is proposed.
I suggest, therefore, that the best way of dealing with the Bill is for the sponsor to withdraw it and to say, "No, I am not going to depend on the payroll vote to get this Bill


through, come what may; there are defects and I will bring it back to the House," on the basis that I have suggested. In that way he will receive the consent and support of both sides of the House, but I am afraid that on the present basis the Bill is so misconceived and the promoters' case is so lacking in detail, that I will vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I listened very intently to what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) had to say when he was introducing the Bill. Unfortunately, nothing that was said allayed any of the doubts that I have about this Bill. I cannot understand why there is suddenly such a terrible rush to have this Bill discussed that we have to move a business motion to proceed after 10 o'clock, when last year a number of other private Bills were in the Private Bills Office and two came out. On inquiry, we were told that was because no one was pushing them into the system.
I find it deplorable that this House is called to discuss a private Bill after 10 o'clock at night, when really we should have had ample time before the Queen's Speech. I wonder whether we should be here discussing this Bill at all, although I accept that the Clerks to the Private Bill Office have deemed that it is a Bill that can be discussed.
A Bill such as is being promoted this evening has such major implications that it would have been better dealt with by a public inquiry in Bristol, to give the people there the opportunity of having their questions answered.
We received in the post this morning a statement on behalf of the promoters, and one would be grateful if at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could clarify it, because, if this is the first in a series of Bills that is to come before this House, one really must object if one believes in long-term planning. But, in laying down long-term plans, one must know what the objectives are at the end of the day. According to the Bill's promoters, other Bills are coming along that will enhance this Bill's progress.
I cannot understand why the Minister raised no objections. He said that no public money had been earmarked but that if an application were made, consideration would be given to it. Surely the Minister should have said that such money would be used for the passengers using the railways today.
The promoters say that the second phase of the rail transit system avoids the heavy cost of underground construction. Obviously, one would like such a system to be underground and out of sight where it would not blight the landscape.
Paragraph (4) of the promoters' statement says that there have been extensive discussions between Avon county council and Bristol city council on matters of concern to them and that a substantial measure of agreement has been reached. Surely it would have been in the promoters' interests for all parties concerned to have reached agreement before the Bill came to the House.
I cannot understand why last year there was no rush, but this year there is a rush and the various parties appear not to want to reach agreement. I understand that a number of petitioners have withdrawn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the Chancellor's anxiety about borrowing and the way in which measures such as this affect expenditure and the rates.
Clause 6(3) says:
The Company shall construct good and sufficient fences on the side of any road bridge forming part of the LRT system.
What happens to the fences in between the bridges? Who is responsible for them? The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that the railway would use part of the existing British Rail system. I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong. Should we assume that responsibility for fencing between any new bridges will rest with British Rail? If not, the owners of the land backing on to the railway will be presented with a bill, if the Bill receives its Second Reading this evening.
Clause 9(1) says:
the railways shall be electric power or such other motive power as the Secretary of State may approve.
If it is to be electricity, why do we need that qualification? Is it to keep the options open, so that diesel-powered motors can be used to propel the carriages? That would mean pollution for the nearby houses.
Clause 9(3) states:
In the provision of passenger services on the LRT system the Company shall have regard to the transport needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled.
Does that mean providing facilities such as special seating and easy access to and egress from the pick-up points, or does it mean that the fares charged to the elderly or disabled will be lower than those for normal, working members of the public? Perhaps the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will clarify whether the Bill is referring to fares and facilities, or merely to fares.
I am extremely concerned about clause 11, which deals with the temporary stoppage of highways. Although the Bill is a private Bill, it seems that many members of the public will be affected if the Bill is enacted. A temporary stoppage of the highway may create additional problems on the motorways going into Bristol, so that may be another reason why the Bill should be withdrawn. We should look at the overall strategy and needs because anything that helps to take traffic off the road should be supported, unless it deals with the matter piecemeal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also mentioned safety arrangements at public level crossings. There have been many accidents on such systems and we should consider the arrangements that the company will make to alleviate some of the dangers. It is not sufficient to say that we shall accept good, standard practices; we should seek to improve those practices.
One cannot stress enough the underpinning of houses near works. It seems to be, "Heads I win, tails you lose". From the moment that the Bill was introduced, it blighted houses along the proposed route. Some of the people represented by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare have lost many thousands of pounds because of the blight on their houses. The company will not be responsible for making up the difference between what the houses would have fetched and their present value. The hon. Gentleman should take that point further. On the other hand, houses that are not affected by blight may have their prices enhanced and, as a result, will not receive compensation.
Clause 15(4) states:
The Company shall take all such steps as may reasonably be required.


Again, it is possible to argue about what "reasonably" means. Is this a matter for an adjudicator like the one used by British Coal, the decisions of whom the Government and British Coal appear to take no notice of, regardless of what they are? Such decisions should be made by an independent arbitrator.
Clause 16 makes certain provisions to ensure safe use of electricity. What insurance does the company intend to take out? It is to be hoped that many people will use a transport system in Bristol that has required such long-term planning. Will there be adequate cover, or will the firm go bankrupt if it has to pay out any large sums?
Clause 18 provides for the extinction of private rights of way, which is deplorable. Many rights of way have been private for many years. Owners sometimes allow the public to use them—walks that are charming in both summer and winter.
Turning to clause 22, I should like to know whether the company will pick up the blighted properties for the market price that they would otherwise have fetched. As for clause 23, which deals with deposited plans, I deplore the Genghis Khan-like principle, "Irrespective of what is decided you must accept what I say, and we can correct any errors."
I should also like to know who makes the appointments referred to on page 16 of the Bill. Perhaps, if the Bill has a Committee stage, the matter will be clarified then.
It appears from clause 27(5) that there will be no chance for local people affected by the Bill to complain. The Bill gives a private company carte blanche to assume the same rights and powers as a public body with none of the responsibilities. Public bodies as we know them are accountable to the Government and to themselves; this private company will be accountable to no one but the courts, and the little men who cannot afford legal action will be in no position to take the company on.
Clause 27(10) states that the company shall
supply the engineer with all such information as he may reasonably require".
Why should British Rail seek to provide a competitor with whatever benefits it might have as a company?
We hope that the Bill will be withdrawn and that a much more sensible Bill will be introduced as part of an overall package to provide the transport system that Bristol needs. It is deplorable that people should be attacked for holding a different point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) quite rightly wants her questions answered so as to be sure that her constituents will be looked after properly, but Conservative Members appear to consider it wrong to hold a different view from theirs. I hope that they will bear in mind the fact that a different point of view can sometimes be very good for people outside this House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 49.

Division No. 50]
[23.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alton, David
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ashby, David
Beggs, Roy





Beith, A. J.
Irvine, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jack, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bowis, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brazier, Julian
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knapman, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Knowles, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lightbown, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Lilley, Peter


Burns, Simon
Livsey, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butcher, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Butler, Chris
Maclean, David


Butterfill, John
Mans, Keith


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Sir Hal


Carrington, Matthew
Mills, Iain


Carttiss, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cartwright, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Cash, William
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sydney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Neale, Gerrard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Hushcliffe)
Neubert, Michael


Conway, Derek
Nicholls, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Norris, Steve


Cope, Rt Hon John
Paice, James


Cran, James
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Pawsey, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Devlin, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dorrell, Stephen
Portillo, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Raffan, Keith


Dover, Den
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Dunn, Bob
Roe, Mrs Marion


Durant, Tony
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fookes, Dame Janet
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forman, Nigel
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Franks, Cecil
Speller, Tony


French, Douglas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gill, Christopher
Steel, Rt Hon David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stern, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Stevens, Lewis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Summerson, Hugo


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tredinnick, David


Hannam, John
Trippier, David


Harris, David
Trotter, Neville


Hayward, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Walker, Bill (T side North)


Heddle, John
Wallace, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Waller, Gary


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)



Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed and


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mr. Jack Aspinall.


Hunter, Andrew





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buckley, George J.
Galbraith, Sam


Cryer, Bob
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Gordon, Mildred






Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Haynes, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Walley, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McFall, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Noes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Alan Meale.


Morley, Elliott

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Access to Personal Files

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
The Government have liberalised access to computer records by making orders under the Data Protection Act 1984. This measure was followed in 1987 by the Access to Personal Files Act, promoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber. It made provision for access in a number of areas to records kept manually or in any other non-computerised form.
The Government gave a general commitment to develop access to personal information on manual records in certain areas in a controlled and evolutionary way. There must, however, be checks and balances in any access arrangements to ensure that individual rights are respected and that public-sector authorities can continue to discharge their legal responsibilities towards the people they serve. That is the basis upon which the range of measures we have in mind will proceed.
I will sketch in some steps we are taking on access to personal records in public sector services. The Government favour the principle that NHS patients have the right to see what has been written about them. We gave a commitment to this effect during the passage of the 1987 Act. We believe that what is needed is a voluntary code of practice on access to those records, and consultations have taken place on a United Kingdom basis with the relevant professional and other interests. No agreement has yet been reached. We strongly prefer the voluntary route, and I hope that the discussions will be concluded satisfactorily.
We have consulted widely on access to school pupil records and further education student records. We believe that parents should have a right of access to pupil records and that pupils or students over 16 should also have an independent right. Last year., our consultations on access in the further education sector showed general support for the Government's proposals. Before making regulations we will have to consider carefully a number of complex technical points raised by consultees. We will also want to take into account the results of separate consultations on school pupil records.
In December, we issued a consultative paper on access to housing records. Local authorities, new towns, the Scottish Special Housing Association, Scottish Homes, the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested bodies have been consulted. The responses are currently being considered.
The present regulations apply the principle of access to social work records held by local authorities. The regulations should be brought into force on 1 April. Local authorities have been aware of our plans for some time and some have been working towards more open access as a matter of good professional practice. The proposed timetable will allow authorities to adjust their procedures and, where necessary, train staff. The regulations provide for access, subject to certain safeguards. Those safeguards reflect circumstances in which it would not be right to grant access to all the available information on


individuals. It should be exceptional for information to be withheld and, even where some is withheld, it should be possible to release most of the available information.
How will it work in practice? Following a request from an individual, a local authority will have to tell him whether it holds "personal information" about him and give him access to it. The definition of "personal information" in the 1987 Act includes expressions of opinion, but no indication of the intentions of the authority towards the individual.
The right to access may be satisfied either by supplying an individual with a copy of the personal information or by some other means, such as letting him see the information. If, however, the individual, having seen the information requires a copy of it, he must be given one. And, if any of the information is not intelligible without explanation, the individual is entitled to that explanation.
Applications for access must be in writing. In addition, authorities will be able to charge a fee of up to £10 for giving access. Authorities should take account of an applicant's ability to pay. Authorities are not obliged to comply with an access request unless they receive the information necessary to establish the identity of the applicant and to locate the information he seeks. Where information on the record could lead to the identity of a third party being revealed or being identified as its source, the local authority must notify the third party within 14 days of receipt of a request for access and seek his consent to access being given. "Third party", in this context, does not include a health professional or someone employed by, or providing a service for reward to, the local authority. Authorities have 40 days from the date of receiving the request or obtaining the necessary further information or consent already referred to, to comply with it.
There are exemptions from the general provisions on access. Some of the information held may contain material provided by a health professional. The local authority will have to notify the health board or the health professional—if the individual is not employed by a health board—within 14 days of receiving the request. Where the health board or the health professional says that access should not be given to some or all of the information, the local authority cannot grant access. This would happen where access might cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the individual or another person, or where access would let a third party be identified—other than a health professional. That also applies to information which comes from the reporter to the children's panel.
The reporter's job depends on a free flow of information to him from the police and other agencies, including health professionals. The reporter will often have an interest in a child or children of families who are involved with those other agencies and where sensitive and confidential family issues are at stake. For example, the police may be pursuing criminal investigations against the parent of a child whose case is being examined by the reporter.
Over the years, reporters have built up good relationships with other agencies that have been prepared to share their information about families in order to help the reporter make the fullest assessment of a child'

situation. That relationship could be prejudiced if the social work department disclosed information inappropriately.
It seems sensible, therefore, to make the social work department get the reporter's approval to disclose any information which comes from him. The reporter must apply tests, including those of serious harm and identity of third parties, broadly similar to those required by social work authorities.
The local authority itself may withhold information in certain circumstances. Those include the risk of serious harm to the health or emotional condition of the individual or a third party. Withholding information on that ground would be exceptional. Local authorities cannot disclose information about or provided by third parties without their consent unless the information can be made anonymous. If the authority does not receive the third party's consent within the time limit, it must give access to as much information as possible without revealing the other person's identity or the fact that he is the source of the information.
Individuals can ask for their records to be changed if they feel that the personal information is wrong. Individuals can ask for a review by the local authority of any decision taken to withhold access completely or partially or where requests to change the records are rejected.
These regulations and the data protection orders provide individuals with comprehensive rights of access, subject to certain specified safeguards, to local authority social work records. They mark the first of a number of steps towards extending the area of service to which access to personal information will apply.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for the Bill of which the regulations form a subsequent part. I was not in the House when that Bill passed through it, but I have read Hansard, from which it is clear that the hon. Member pursued the matter with considerable vigour and attention to detail. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Bill is now on the statute book.
Turning to the regulations, I acknowledge the Minister's consultation with various parties before the draft circulars were prepared. However, I understand that there was some slight difficulty over the regulations applying to the reporters to the children's panels. I understand that those regulations were inserted at a later date. Today I received a representation from the reporter to the children's panel in Tayside, a Mr. Meek, who was worried whether the word "individual" should also apply to children who are also able to refuse the question on informed consent.
However, I welcome the consultation that took place before the regulations were produced. Because we agree broadly with the regulations, we shall not vote against them. We welcome them because, although considerable work will be involved, social workers agree that they will lead to better records and better decisions by social workers.
The more I read the regulations, the more I am impressed by their complexity. Social work records are


voluminous and extremely detailed. They contain a mixture of opinion and fact and a vast amount of third party information. The combination of those factors makes social work records difficult to open up widely to the public.
It is slightly incongruous that we are talking about social work records without also discussing medical case records, which are not so detailed. They are usually smaller and mostly factual, and rarely contain non-medical third-party opinions. It would be logical and easier for us to have discussed them in the first place. However, if copies of medical records had been made available to patients, many of the problems dealt with by the regulations would not exist, because the patients would already possess copies of the information.
Therefore, we should remain committed—as the Labour party is, and I am sure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is—to opening up medical records as well. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. There are considerable parallels between the records we are discussing tonight and medical case records. We remain committed to that, but only after extensive consultation, and with the agreement of the medical profession ensuring all the necessary safeguards.
During the passage of this Bill, Ministers constantly came to the Dispatch Box and spoke of the discussions that they were having with the medical profession on this matter. Could the Minister let us know just how far they have gone? When the Access to Medical Reports Bill was being debated, the Minister said:
The House will recall that, during the passage of what is now the Access to Personal Files Act in the previous Parliament, the Government gave an undertaking to enter into talks with the medical profession, with a view to achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records on a non-statutory basis".—[Official Report, 12 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 665.]
Perhaps the Minister could let us know what progress has been made in these talks. Are we any further forward in opening up medical records on a non-statutory basis?
While we are talking tonight about social work records, I do not think that we can allow medical records to be taboo. If we are to give patients increased flexibility, greater choice and control over their medical care, they must have a copy of their own case records.
On this subject, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) who said in the debate on the Access to Personal Files Bill:
In the field of health it is especially important to redress the odds that are presently in favour of the medical profession and turn them in favour of the consumer. This is part of the general idea of giving people power. They have power to choose as consumers and they want that power in all aspects of their lives. We have a duty to give them that power and that applies especially in medical matters"—
as I understand myself—
where there is a kind of awe of the medical profession that can shelter incompetence and inadequacy."—[Official Report, 20 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 1197.]
We say, "Hear, hear," to these words.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Say it again, Sam.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member can read it in the morning in the Official Report because I want to get on now, so that other hon. Members can perhaps catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I come now specifically to the regulations, although I will intertwine my comments on them with parallels on medical case records. I deal first with the charge of £10. The Minister and I will agree that, to both of us, £10 is probably not all that much. I thought I heard one of my hon. Friends at the back of me disagreeing. Really, though, £10 is not that much. The Minister knows that to a member of Muirfield golf club £10 would not be very much to ask. He will appreciate, however, that the sort of people who generally have social work records are often on income support; and if one is on income support, a charge of £10 is excessive.
I realise that local authorities need not make that charge, and I think that Strathclyde will probably make no charge, but I should have preferred the £10 charge not to be part of this. There should be no financial barrier, no practical or theoretical barrier, in gaining access to one's files.
The lead-in time is rather short. This starts on 1 April. The Minister said that it will give time for the necessary training and preparation of new files. It may be true that there will be time, but there is also another area to be dealt with—discussion with other parties on the third party's access to the information. It has been the experience of social work departments that, when they go to other bodies such as the police or children's panels or health boards, those bodies are unaware of what is happening. It will take a considerable amount of time for them to pick up on all the regulations, and that will make the lead-in time rather short. We could have done with extending it a little further.
On the definition of "serious harm", I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) who will perhaps, if he can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, give a lawyer's viewpoint on this question. It has been said to me that this will be of great benefit to the profession to which my hon. Friend belongs. It is difficult to decide what serious harm is, but I think that we could do with a slightly wider definition.
Access to the records could be prevented by that test. I know that from my own profession. In discussions about whether medical records should be opened up, someone almost always says, "It would be difficult to do that because it might produce serious harm in the patient." I always worry about that excuse. I have been practising for many years now and I cannot think of one case in which I could not have allowed access on the ground that to do so would have caused serious harm to the patient. I am not saying that that never happens in other specialties, although I should have thought that if serious harm occurred, it would have occurred in my specialty. I am not saying that we do not need safeguards: I merely say that, although the danger of serious harm is often used as a reason for refusing access to files in my profession, I could not have used it in the case of any of my patients. It would help if the Government could produce further guidance on what the definition of serious harm entails.
Social work records are complex and voluminous. They are full of opinions, often from third parties. That creates problems with the 40-day rule, which says that a social work department has to give a reply within 40 days. Certain difficulties will arise if a department has to consult third parties. Suppose that it consulted the health board and found that the consultant was away on holiday yet again. It would then take a considerable length of time to obtain his opinion. But under the regulations, if no reply


is given within 40 days, it is accepted that the information can be made available. Information may therefore be made available that the consultant would not have wished to be made available. The 40-day period may produce problems—although perhaps not insurmountable problems—and we should be considering it.
Let us consider the complexity of the process and the number of people who have to be involved. Let us take what is considered a simple social work case—a case of child abuse.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Simple?

Mr. Galbraith: The diagnosis is simple, but from a social work point of view a child abuse case is probably the most complex type of case there is. Numerous third parties are involved, including the police force, a general practitioner, a community nurse, the procurator fiscal, a community health specialist, a health visitor, a district nurse and a voluntary organisation. All of them will have to be consulted and a review of all documents and registers will have to be carried out by the senior manager. A decision will have to be made on the basis of the serious harm criterion in the light of all that information. There will have to be counselling for the individual, to assist him in coming to terms with the information. There will have to be support for the staff, legal advice and the consideration of the possibility of appeal. That shows the complexity of what is involved.
That very complexity bears with it certain financial burdens, which will be thrown on social work departments—expenditure not just on training but on preparing the reports. When the Data Protection Act was introduced, there were very few requests, whereas in a three-month pilot scheme involving 11,000 records in Strathclyde social work department there were 22 requests. If we round that figure up over the year for complex cases, it means a cost to Strathclyde social work department of about £1·5 million—aconsiderable financial resource.
We do not know exactly what financial resource will be involved, because we do not know how many requests there will be; there may be far fewer than in the pilot scheme, or there may be far more. The social work departments will monitor the costs. Will the Minister look favourably on any requests if it is found that the financial burdens are considerable?
I have raised some important points about the regulations, and I know that some of my hon. Friends will wish to consider them further. Nevertheless, we welcome the regulations—in the spirit of opening up information and giving individuals greater responsibility, and for the good of society as a whole.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) illustrated the complexity of this matter. I compliment my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on again showing how good he is at consultation, discussion and negotiation before presenting regulations. He and I will agree that anyone who thinks that simply bringing in regulations will be a solution to this complex problem has made no attempt to study what is involved.
The hon. Member gave an honest and frank account of the position as he sees it. I do not disagree with anything he said. We all welcome the theory, but we have reservations about the practice. In the more complex cases, it will be very difficult to give the individual what he wants because of all the third parties who will be involved.
By its very nature, social work involves many people. I have never been a champion of social workers. I have always felt that there are some things with which they should not be dealing. It is not their fault, but it has arisen because of the powers which Parliament has given to local authorities. We have created vast empires which are not always to the advantage of those in need.
I am not condemning social workers. Many of them are highly motivated, and we should understand the problems that they face at the sharp end. I have grave reservations about whether we are achieving what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) initially wanted, but I welcome the fact that we are moving forward and that individuals may get access to more information which affects them personally. Hopefully, it will help people to come to terms with their problems. On that basis, I welcome the regulations.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In response to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I would say that I have great trust in and respect for the overwhelming majority of social workers. They have to take on the burdens that others leave on their doorsteps. I say that not because I am married to a senior social worker who has on occasion had to take into care young children who have been subject to physical and/or sexual abuse. Social workers take their duties very seriously.
I welcome the regulations, but they are an appalling piece of work. The English is dreadful. Many of the paragraphs have to be read and re-read. Fortunately, a fairly useful explanatory note is attached. I should like definitive answers to problems that I have encountered.
Under the heading "Exemptions from access to other information", regulation 10(3) refers to some information being withheld and the need in some cases to withhold information. I ask the Minister who is to be the censor where this information is concerned. Is it to be the social worker who has dealt with the applicant in the past or the manager of the department in which the social workers work? This one paragraph presents formidable problems for social workers.
Another question concerns whether the information is always to be given to the applicant in documentary form. Can a social worker refuse to give information to a client who is well known to him or her and seeks information over the telephone or in a face-to-face interview in an office?
With regard to regulation 5, where another individual is concerned, I ask the Minister where a young person stands who makes an application at the local Department of Social Security office for income support because he or she has been driven from the family home by the violence inflicted on him or her, by parents or the partner of a parent, and the official requires evidence of the domestic state of affairs? What happens to that young person, who is presumably known to a social worker, when he or she seeks information to strengthen or substantiate a claim for


income support? In such a case, will the social worker have to approach the person who has inflicted or threatened to inflict violence upon that person seeking help?
Another example is that of the estranged couple where, say, the wife leaves the family home, again perhaps because of incidents involving domestic violence, and seeks help from the local housing department and the DSS office and is told that she needs evidence to support her application for assistance from these officials. In this case, will a social worker be allowed to approach the partner who has threatened violence? What will happen if, in a case like this, the violent partner refuses to co-operate with the social worker? What sanctions can a social worker impose on a third party who refuses to co-operate in cases of this kind?
I do not need to remind the Minister that such cases are not altogether rare in Scotland, I regret to say. These are important questions, particularly concerning the refusal of a named individual to consent to information being given to an applicant. I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to these questions.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I had intended to ask the Minister a question similar to that put by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the clarity of his explanation of these complex regulations. Without complicating the question that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked, may I ask my hon. Friend to comment on the position of estranged couples where one is in Scotland and one is in England? I raise the matter because of a constituency case, and clarification of the point would be appreciated.
My hon. Friend explained the progress that the Government had made on access, particularly in relation to education. If my hon. Friend referred to housing regulations, I may have missed his remarks. I understand that consultation on access in that area is taking place.
Do the regulations affect hon. Members? I gather that we have no rights of access to information under the regulations, although we sometimes get confidential information when those in charge of it feel it appropriate because they can regard us as people who will respect their trust and confidence. Presumably we could get information if we acted, in effect, as an appointed agent for somebody under the regulations. Hon. Members often become closely involved with social workers in individual cases, so if the Under-Secretary would comment on the way in which, if at all, the regulations affect us, that would be helpful.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. These are the first regulations to reach the Floor of the House since the passage of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. I agree with what has been said about the complexity of some of the language that is now used; the original concept was simple and crystal clear in setting out what we were trying to achieve.
While I appreciate the difficulties involved in getting the checks and balances right, I have some misgivings about the detail of the regulations, apart from the complexity of the language. The Government seem to have made the

mistake of trying to maintain common provisions between the regulations that govern access to manual records, with which we are dealing tonight, and the access provisions that relate to computer-stored information under the data Protection Act 1984.
I have always maintained that the two types of records are entirely different. Individuals have had access since 1984 to the sort of information that will be stored typically on computer and electronic files. But the type of information that we are discussing—manually stored information will—still, even looking into the fairly far future, be stored manually, even as we become a more electronically geared society. In social work departments there will always be a need for hard copy, manilla files which, as the Under-Secretary said, will be voluminous and of a quite different character from the electronically stored information that is covered by the Data Protection Act. Of course there is a need to keep common provisions, because we want to keep life as simple as we can, but I think that the Government were wrong to insist that the same provisions that governed the Data Protection Act should be used in governing access to manually stored files.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that there is a suspicion that the medical profession is backsliding—ld say it is no coincidence—on access to medical files and people's individual medical records.
I think that the BMA was right to ask for extra time. At its conference two years ago it was on the point of agreeing to adopt access to medical reports as a matter of course. However, it has moved back from that point, and I am extremely worried about that. I do not think that the Government can hide behind the need to get a voluntary scheme up and running if that scheme is going to take too long to achieve.
Has the Minister in mind a timetable within which he thinks it would be reasonable to try to achieve a voluntary scheme? If he can achieve it I should certainly be prepared to let it run and see how it operated, and if it operated reasonably well I should be prepared to countenance leaving it on a voluntary basis. However, if the medical profession really digs in its heels and makes life difficult, the Government may have to resort to statutory legislation and regulations such as we are discussing. The Minister should have a clear idea not to take five, three or even two years to make up his mind about that.
Section 2(4) of the Access to Personal Files Act explicitly rules out retrospection. That is right and proper because, as the House will know, after 1 April, and only then, individuals will have a new right of access. The social work profession has that much time to change its practice—many areas have already done so—to make sure that files created after that date are made readily and easily accessible. An absolute bar on retrospection and a rigid enforcement of the provision in section 2(4) would make access of limited use to some very specific categories of people. I am thinking, for example, of children who were formerly in cares and I think that a local authority faced with an application from someone who was formerly in care, should go beyond the minimum requirements laid down in the parent Act and these regulations and should be allowed flexibility. I hope that any guidance practice notes from the Scottish Office dealing with that aspect of the regulations will reflect my view.
The House should be aware that there is no bar on retrospection and access to social work records under the Data Protection Act 1984 and that is something of an anomaly, although I understand the need to give a certain amount of protection, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. At that point the regulations come into force, because otherwise there would be havoc, leading to some of the expenses that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to. There is a need for flexibility in applying retrospection under the regulations.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said about fees, because the £10 maximum charge, which is of course again a reflection of the charges made under the Data Protection Act, will put many people off if it is charged in full. I hope that the Scottish Office will give guidance to local authorities on that matter. I remind the House that the Department of Social Security, that well-known enlightened institution, makes no charge to people who want access to computerised social security records. If the DSS can do that under the Data Protection Act, I hope that Scottish local authorities will do the same.
If local authorities make full use of maximum charges, they will not only be able to charge £10 for access to manually stored records but £10 for computer-stored records. In many cases one file will straddle manually and electronically stored files, and access may cost £20, which would be a bad thing.
Access should be of mutual benefit to the practitioners in the profession and the clients, and I hope that the regulations will be implemented in that spirit. I know from my experience in drawing up the parent Act that many local authorites, particularly in England and Wales, are far ahead of the regulations, with successful schemes up and running which allow access free of charge. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
I understand that future cases must be extremely sensitively handled but the House should know that the provision on opinions being disclosable but intentions being withheld was forced on us by the Government and the wording reflects that of the Data Protection Act. It is regrettable that it is here, but it is, and I hope that it will be applied sensitively.
I fear that there may be some problems about the stipulated compliance period for local authorities. I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, but I take a slightly different perspective—that of the applicant. Local authorities will have substantial problems. In my part of the world they are much smaller than some of the social work departments in the west of Scotland. But 40 days within which to comply with the regulations is a long delay.
If I read the regulations correctly—I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I have not—that 40-day period starts only after the application has been made, and identification and all the other requests have been completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the local authority. Then the local authority has 10 days in which to identify third parties whose consent may have to be solicited before the information is divulged.
If the third party delays or refuses to provide that information, at worst there may be a delay of two, three or four months. I think that the Minister said explicitly that,

if a third party refuses to comply or delays, the local authority has an obligation to publish the information minus whatever information would be in the gift of—or related to—the other identifiable person. I assume that his or her rights will be protected if there is no response to the local authority request—the information will be disclosed, but the third party information will be withheld. If I have understood that properly, it at least makes the matter clear. The regulations should state explicitly that access is afforded after the third party identifiable in the files has refused a request or has delayed.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is the expert in these matters, although not a self-proclaimed expert. Is he suggesting that if another individual refuses to grant consent to the disclosure of information, his refusal should be ignored? How do the English regulations, which the hon. Gentleman lauded earlier, deal with such refusals?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am not sure that I understand the question. My interpretation of the regulations is that if there are any references to identifiable persons, who have rights over disclosures made to another party, they are entitled to be consulted about whether they wish the information that relates to then—no more and no less—to be divulged. They have a choice. Requests come from the local authority asking whether the people identified mind the authority divulging the information. They can say yes, do nothing or say no. If they say no, the local authority divulges the information without reference to them. It blanks it out, or removes the relevant page, report or section and the file is then made available. Third parties should be given the option to remove, excise or amend the information as they please. They can make representations to the local authority to preserve their own rights.
I was concerned about what would happen if a person did nothing, and the Minister cleared up that point. Initially I thought that the regulations would enable the local authority to say that it had not had a response from the identified third person, so it would not divulge any information. The Minister has clarified that by saying that, in such circumstances, the local authority would divulge the information except for anything that related to the identified third party.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I shall clarify the position. To put it simply, the third person can object only to his identity being disclosed. He cannot object to the information being disclosed. It would be open to the authority, when there was a refusal by a third party, to make the information anonymous and to provide it on that basis.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that that information is helpful. That is what I was trying to say, in a convoluted way.
The regulations on exemptions are an improvement on the original suggestion from the Government that harm, rather than serious harm, should be the test for exemption. The idea of a test of serious harm is based on the Data Protection Act 1984 and is a considerable advantage on the simple test of harm, which would have provided far too big a loophole. The Bill that I presented to the House originally allowed for information to be withheld where serious harm would be caused to someone other than the applicant.
To deal with situations such as child abuse and wife battering, the original Bill did not allow complete withholding of information on any harm grounds. It had


a better solution. In the case of distress or harm, it allowed for inspection in the presence of a professional. In such cases the professional would be a social worker. In the case of serious harm potentially being inflicted on a person, we suggested that there should be a referral for six months so that counselling and other matters could be examined. I still think that that was a better way to proceed, but although the regulations do not allow for it I recognise that they are something of an advance.
The regulations do not seem to lay any duty on local authorities to notify people when parts of the record are withheld. That worries me. As in the Data Protection Act 1984, there is no provision for applicants to be told whether the records that they have received in response to their applications are complete. Last year I brought forward a Bill on access to medical reports, which is now an Act. It requires doctors to tell patients when they are withholding information from reports supplied to insurance companies and potential employers, either because it might cause serious harm or because it involves the privacy of others. I regret the omission from the regulations, because I think that the value of such reports is much greater if those who receive them can be sure that what they have is all that there is—or are told explicitly if that is not the case.
The provision for an appeal procedure involving three members of the local authority would lead, in my view, to a hare, sparse and minimal system. I think that there should be an ultimate right of appeal to the courts. Hon. Members may consider that that would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if we do not get it right people may start having recourse to judicial reviews over unreasonable refusal of access. That remedy would, of course, he technically available, but it would also be expensive and time-consuming.
Under the Data Protection Act there is a right of appeal, initially to the registrar and thereafter to the courts. Neither of those independent routes is available under the regulations. Presumably people have a theoretical right to go to the ombudsman if they can show that injustice has been caused by maladministration, but that is a strict test compared with the provision of an explicit right to go to the sheriff court.
I am disappointed by a number of aspects of the regulations. If they are implemented inflexibly, they may lead to unnecessary delays and diminish the new rights conveyed by the parent Act by being too costly for many people to exercise. They deny the spirit of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, which sought to provide cheap and ready access to files held on individuals by local authorities. I fear that such over-rigorous implementation of the regulations may erect substantial barriers on the road to achieving the ends sought by the original Act.

Mr. Frank Doran: When I left university in 1975 I went to work for a local authority. I specialised in social work, particularly child care. It was an exciting time to go into that sort of work, because the Children Act 1975 had just been passed, giving social workers involved with children a strong indication that at last some attention was being paid to their profession.
As I became more involved in the subject, however, I realised that a number of fundamental problems had not been dealt with, two of which are exemplified in the

regulations. One was the protective attitude that social workers, like most professionals, felt towards information that they held on behalf of their clients; the other was the complexity of the law relating to children particularly, and to social work in general.
I made a quick check in the Library tonight. When I was practising in adoption, there were 18 or 19 statutes covering adoption law in Scotland. I am pleased to see that there has been an improvement—there are now only seven—but that gives hon. Members some idea of the complexity facing social workers when considering the la .w of adoption. I counted 24 statutes which infringe on the subject of child care. The complexity of the issues that we have discussed tonight is reflected in these regulations. The parliamentary draftsman has failed miserably. The prolixity will make the job of the social worker even more difficult.
The regulations also show the problems of protecting the interests of the professionals before we even consider the principle and spirit of the Act promoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which concerns the interests of the person who is the subject of all the social work attention and who should have access to that information. As a practising solicitor, both in local authority work and in our courts in Scotland, I have seen the difficulties of presenting a reasonable case.
I intend to pick out some of the problems created by the regulations and relate them to the protection of the professionals and the complexity of the regulations. A number of issues cause me concern. For example, paragraph 10(2), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred, states:
the carrying out of the social work functions of the social work authority would be likely to be prejudiced by reason of the fact that serious harm to the physical or mental health or emotional condition of the individual who is the subject of the information would be likely to be caused
and is thus a reason for refusing access to information. That is a very loose test. Who will determine the criteria? A reporter, medical practitioner or health board can certify as, under these regulations, can the social worker who may be carrying the day-to-day responsibility for a case. The phrase "emotional condition" concerns me greatly.
I know from experience that clients who have seen the information held on their social work files have been bloody angry about what has been said about them. Will a social worker be able to say that that is a condition, because revealing that information will affect the management of his case? I discussed this matter with the Scottish representative of the British Association of Social Workers and he thought the definition very loose. The provision should be used only on rare occasions. In the time available to me, I can pick out only examples of the abuse that might be open to a difficult person who does not want the information to be released. Anyone who has had access to social work case records—I have had access to hundreds—will be aware that, in many cases, they contain more opinion than fact and sometimes the opinion is very subjective. It is only when these things are tested, particularly before a court, that we can separate opinion from fact and realise how loosely those records are compiled.
Let me deal now with the position of reporters to the children's panels. I have had a great deal of experience in


dealing with children's panels and I am concerned about the operation of the regulations in this respect, particularly about the problems that confronted me as a lawyer, and other lawyers in Scotland, after the case of Kennedy v. A, which was reported in page 358 of the 1986 Scots Law Times. In that case, the person appearing before the children's panel had no right of access to the reports which were before the panel. As I understand it, subject to all the exemptions in the regulations, the parent will now be allowed access to those reports.
I am concerned about how that will operate in the day-to-day operation of children's hearings. For example, when a parent appears before a children's hearing, the chairman will be instructed by the regulations that govern the procedure at hearings that a summary of the content of the reports available to the hearing will be made available to the parent. Will that change now that the parent has access to the reports through these regulations? The practical operation of the regulations will make it impossible for the parent to have the information if the local authority decides to use the time limits available here. That information is of most use to the parent at the time when he appears before the children's hearing, or when his representative addresses it. Will the children's hearing procedure be changed?
One of the major effects of the Kennedy v. A case with which I had to deal on a number of occasions was the ridiculous problem of lawyers being expected to act on behalf of their clients in presenting appeals to the court, and, because of the decision of the Court of Session, they were not allowed access to the information upon which the decision of the children's hearing was based. Will the decision in that case be changed as a result of the regulations? It is important for practising solicitors who have to appear before the courts to know how the regulations will operate in practice. I am well aware of the handicap of having to present a case to the sheriff court—initially—on appeal without adequate information, or the ability to question the information that the children's hearing or the reports' compilers have had access to.
I have been away from practice since I was elected to the House, so I do not know, and have not been able to check, whether there has been a change in the Kennedy v. A position, but I should be surprised if there had been. I would be delighted to hear the Minister's views on that.
I am also worried about prison records. Social workers operate in prisons as representatives of local authorities. Of course, most prison records are covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911, but they are in the possession of the local authorities. Can the Minister clarify that? Are prison social work records also subject to these regulations, and would the subjects of the records be allowed access to them?
I am gravely concerned, too, about the review procedure. With all due respect to local authority councillors, a review body composed of them would be inappropriate. I have practical experience of this, and shall mention one example in a moment. Before someone can make a decision on case records, he must have access to them. Local councillors have access to certain local authority records, by statutory right. But they have never had access to the case records of social work clients. I hope that that system will continue, and that they will not be

given such access. I mean no criticism of local councillors; it is just inappropriate for them to have access to the records of people who may be their constituents or neighbours.
As I understand it, decisions on social work cases are made as follows. Reports are prepared by social workers in the case of, say, assumption of parental rights. Full case records are not submitted to the council sub-committee dealing with the cases—abstracts and summaries of cases are produced. Social workers may discuss particular details, but the idea of case records is alien.
When I was employed by the local authority, the chairman of a committee discovered that the social work department had information relating to a member of the family of a councillor of an opposing party. That chairman insisted on access to that file. The social worker involved had the guts to stand up to the councillor and refused to allow him access. The case was fought hard and, thankfully, the director of social work, with the backing of the social workers' professional body, refused to release the file to the councillor. The councillor pleaded his statutory right—in which he had the backing of the chief executive of the local authority—but the director of social work stood up to him. That is an example of the inappropriate use of social work records. I am unhappy about these regulations, because they would legalise access by councillors to social work records. The only proper way to review the decision of a local authority officer—Which is effectively what we are doing—is through the courts, not through a committee of the council.
The Minister has recently established a review committee to study child care legislation. One of the areas being examined is the assumption of parental rights. I have always been opposed to the idea of a local authority being judge and jury in its own case. It does not matter that it is a local authority: it could be any individual or body. In cases of assumption of parental rights, it effectively will be judge and jury under these regulations. I implore the Minister to review that position and to seriously consider involving the courts, so that we can have some objectivity and maintain the principle of the confidentiality of social work case records.
The point has already been made forcibly that costs will act as a barrier. I appreciate that local authorities are not obliged to charge £10, but I cannot understand why a person who is an ordinary run-of-the-mill social work client should have to pay £10 to gain access to his records, whereas an adopted person who has statutory rights under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 to ask the local authority for information concerning his natural parents and the details of his adoption, does not have to pay a fee. I do not understand why a distinction is being made. Why is there a barrier to those people, who are not adoptees, having access to their records? I would appreciate some information about that.
Another important omission in these regulations is counselling. I shall again use the adoption legislation as an example. An adult who was adopted as a child, who wants access to his record, is counselled. The local authority is statutorily required to provide a counselling record. Under these regulations, vulnerable people may have access to their records, but there is no obligation or right to counselling. I should like the Minister to explain the distinction between the person who has been adopted and the ordinary social work client.
The regulations, of course, recognise that we are dealing with a complex situation concerning vulnerable people, who have had cause to call on the social work services. Some of those people may have spent their lives under the umbrella of social workers. I have acted for people who have known nothing else but contact with the social work department from early childhood right through to adulthood, because of a variety of circumstances—perhaps because of mental illness or handicap or because they were children in care. They have come through the system, and now their children are going into care. Counselling would be valuable to such'people. Why is it not their statutory right?
Despite my critical comments, I am not intending to force a vote on these regulations. I feel, however, that they have the serious defects relating to costs and the review body. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the satisfaction which I am seeking and that he will take on board what has been said and reconsider these crucial issues.
It is important to pay some tribute to the practice which has now developed in social work. In many respects—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire alluded to this—the regulations lie behind what is now good social work practice. When records are compiled they are now the subject of discussion with the client, so he knows what is being placed on the record and he can assess what is said about him.
It is important that we recognise the good practices that now exist and pay tribute to social workers who work under the present difficult circumstances in Scotland.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken I give a broad welcome to the regulations because I believe that access should be given to information held in personal files.
I want to pick up two matters that have not been touched upon by other hon. Members, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them. First, I want to know the implications of the regulations for the voluntary agencies that work within the social work sector. Paragraph 1 of the regulations refers to the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and the definitions in that paragraph appear to relate to local authority social work departments. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members will recognise the valuable role of the voluntary agencies that operate in the Scottish social work sector.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred to the cost implications for Strathclyde regional council and its social work department. Obviously there will also be cost implications for the voluntary agencies if the regulations apply to them. Many of such agencies operate on a shoestring budget and have limited facilities, nevertheless they perform a vital function. Many work closely with local authorities, which we welcome, and it is important to know the implications of the regulations to those agencies.
What are the implications of the regulations to files that are compiled during the training of professional social workers? Before coming to the House I was a co-ordinator for the certificate in social service and my responsibilities covered the west of Scotland, which included Strathclyde

regional council, Dumfries and Galloway regional council, the two education departments of those local authorities and various voluntary organisations.
During training, those students who were already employed had to compile a great deal of work that related to the type of case load that they would have on a day-to-day basis. There was always a difficulty in defining whether those case files were the property of the college that was responsible for the academic qualification, the social work department that employed the student or the individual student. I stress that throughout the work undertaken on that course we emphasised confidentiality to our students and we never accepted any clear identification of an individual involved in those case files.
We must consider the implications of the regulations on those files that are used by students in the process of their professional training. We need highly skilled, professionally trained social workers if we are to face up to the many problems in our society.
Have the implications of the regulations been discussed with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, which is the validating body? If not, will such an opportunity arise because, in the past, different interpretations have been given to the various schemes that operate the certificate in social service? It would be helpful to have clear guidance.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had a wide-ranging debate in which hon. Members have quoted some interesting legal cases, to which I do not propose to give an instant response tonight. One of the interesting aspects of the debate was the emphasis placed on medical records, which are not immediately covered by the regulations. The hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pressed me on the progress with the medical profession on that matter. As I said in my opening remarks, negotiations are continuing. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggested that, if we were unable to reach agreement on a voluntary basis, we should take the necessary statutory measures. I can assure him tonight, without too much equivocation, that if we are unable to reach agreement on a voluntary code, I shall respond vigorously to the pressure that the hon. Gentleman and others are putting on the Government in that respect.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, and a number of other hon. Members, placed some emphasis on the question of charging. The £10 fee is a maximum charge and local authorities have the discretion to charge nothing at all if they feel that a charge would result in the information not being made available to the applicant. Our guidance will recommend that the applicant's ability to pay should be taken into account. That should satisfy the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and a number of others, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
I was asked about the lead time being given to local authorities. At the beginning of this month local authorities were told that the regulations would come into force on 1 April. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) pointed out, many local authorities have already established good practices in that respect and therefore have a head start. I appreciate that it imposes a


certain discipline on the authorities to ensure that they have the necessary mechanisms in place to operate the regulations in time, but I do not believe that there will be any particular problem.
I was a little confused about the messages on the 40-day rule. If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden argued that that was not enough time to respond. However, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire argued that it was far too long, so I suppose that we have probably got it just about right.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that the 40-day rule is too long or too short. I agree that the Minister has got it just about right. I was trying to make the point that there may be exceptional circumstances in which for some reason it is impossible to get third-party permission within the 40-day rule. I wonder whether the guidance to local authorities might contain some exceptional exemptions that would allow for that. For example if a consultant was away for a considerable time, and if information was released without the permission of that person, that could lead to distrust with the authority from which the information was obtained and could cause further problems in future. Will the Minister consider making some special exceptional exemptions?

Mr. Forsyth: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made the point that the 40-day clock starts ticking once the necessary information is available, so there is provision for that. I do not want to dissuade the hon. Gentleman from the view that we have got it right by pursuing that issue too far.
As to his point about consultants going on holiday, there is provision in the regulations for another health professional to give the necessary consent, in the absence of the appropriate person.
The other main theme which the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden raised at the beginning of the debate was the definition of serious harm. The point has been made in consultation as to why the regulations do not specify "harm" instead of "serious harm". A balance is involved. It is a difficult subject, but by definition such matters can be decided only on a case-by-case basis. We all recognise that the desire which we share to ensure that information is available where appropriate must be balanced by the odd, very exceptional case where this test would be met. I can perhaps reassure those hon. Members who were concerned about the definition by saying that it is our view that it should be exceptional for information to be withheld, rather than the kind of circumstance which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was concerned about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked me about the housing regulations. Yes, we are at present consulting about those matters and we have had about 30 responses to date. We will proceed with the same vigour but care which we have shown in the regulations themselves.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the position of Members of Parliament. The position of hon. Members will, as usual, be the same as that of any other citizen: they

will have no special rights under these regulations. But, as my hon. Friend himself pointed out, if they are acting as agent they will be able to operate on that basis.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked who would act as censor, who would be responsible for deciding whether information should be withheld. I can assure him that such a decision will be taken by senior management.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden asked me about the resource implications. It is perhaps appropriate at this point to highlight the splendid record of this Government in providing support for social work services in local government. I am bound to say that when I looked at these figures I was so astonished by the increases that we have made available that I had them checked, and I am assured that since 1979, when we came into office, the planning figure for such services has increased by no less than two thirds, in real terms. Next year the planned provision exceeds that for the current year by 13 per cent. and local authorities' own budgets by 6 per cent. for that year, so I do not anticipate that these regulations will make much of a dent on the very substantial resources which we have provided. However, it is open to the local authorities, in the light of experience, in the negotiations which take place on the rate support grant, to make a case if they feel it appropriate.
I was asked about the regulations not providing for a person to be told of information being withheld. This is an important point made, I think, by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I must say that in some circumstances it would be almost as damaging to make it known that information was being withheld as to provide the information in the first place. But the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that the imperative should be to make information available where appropriate—and that includes the information that the information is being withheld. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance will invite local authorities to judge whether a person should be told, in keeping with that good practice.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South referred to the complexity of the child care law. I completely agree with him. He himself pointed out that a child care review is operating currently. It will report to my hon. Friend and will, I think, cover some of the points which concern the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South also asked me about prison records. Although social work records in prison would not be covered by the regulations, we will try to ensure that the same kind of code is operated on social work records in the prison system, although not on a statutory basis. I think that that will meet his point.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South also asked about the provision of counselling for people who have obtained access to their records. The guidance will certainly suggest that local authorities should offer counselling where appropriate consistent with good practice. He also made an important point about the children's hearings rules, and asked whether they would need to be changed as a result of the regulations. Chairmen of children's hearings are still required to discuss the substance of reports with families. If the regulations are approved, we shall reconsider the terms of the children's hearing rules in that respect. The rules are laid down by statutory instrument, and I am happy to undertake to look at—and, if necessary, amend—the instrument before the regulations come into force on 1 April.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked me about voluntary organisations. The 1987 Act extends only to the manual records of local authorities for their social work functions, and the regulations could not, therefore, extend to the records of voluntary organisations, although the hon. Lady has made a point of substance. It is open to the voluntary organisations to institute procedures based on the regulations, as I have confirmed we shall do in the prison service. Some voluntary bodies are already developing access arrangements but we are not requiring them to do so.
There has been some criticism of the complexity of the regulations. That is often a consequence of private Members' legislation. I have discovered in recent months that it is never as simple as it might appear at first sight. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will accept the regulations as a genuine and sincere attempt to bring to people in Scotland the opportunity of access to information to which they are entitled, and the first in a long line of such attempts.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

Gravel Extraction (Burnham Beeches)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Tim Smith: On 14 July last year, the Summerleaze Gravel Company Limited applied to Buckinghamshire county council for planning permission in relation to land in East Burnham park, Lees farm and Hunts Wood farm, all of which are in East Burnham in my constituency. The application is for the winning and working of sand and gravel and matters ancillary thereto, including the erection of processing plant, the crossing of public highways, the importation of infilling material and restoration to agriculture. Part of the land is at present used as farmland, part is a nursery and part is woodland.
The total site area is 52 hectares and the development will take 13 years to complete. It will involve the removal of 1·65 million tonnes of gravel at the rate of 150,000 tonnes a year. The site will then be filled with 1·1 million cu m of waste material. According to the planning application, the development will involve maximum daily lorry movements of 365.
The application site lies within a preferred area in the Buckinghamshire county council's minerals local plan, which was adopted nearly seven years ago, in April 1982. The preferred area is known as area 17. Preferred areas are areas where applications to work sand and gravel for general market needs will be favourably considered. There is therefore a presumption in favour of the application. I want to explain to my hon. Friend why that presumption should be rebutted—at any rate, why we should call in the application, even though there is a presumption in its favour.
There are two principal reasons—one of substance and the other of procedure. The substantive reason relates to the proximity to the site of Burnham beeches, which is nationally recognised as one of the largest remaining blocks of woodland in England—undisturbed since the ice age—and is highly valued for the ecological system to be found within its borders. It is listed as a site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The beeches have been owned by the Corporation of London since 1880. The Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act requires it to keep the land unenclosed and unbuilt on for the recreation and enjoyment of the public and to observe its natural aspect. Burnham beeches attract up to 500,000 visitors from the surrounding area, London and overseas every year.
The application site is about 200 m from the southern boundary of the beeches. The corporation of London is therefore concerned that, should planning permission be granted, damage would be caused to the environment and amenity of Burnham beeches. The ground water table system could be unbalanced by the draw-down effects of the excavation of the natural water table. The corporation has therefore commissioned a report from the Institute of Hydrology on the hydrological implications. To date it has received only an interim report, prepared in under six weeks. The Institute of Hydrology has concluded that the underlying parts of the beeches are in hydraulic connection with the gravel it is proposed to extract. The exact nature of the connection is not known at this stage, and its establishment will require further boreholes and associated study.
The pollution effects of dust discharge over the beeches could be severe. The corporation has therefore also commissioned a report on the potential effects of dust discharge and in particular the effect of such pollution under the lichen and algae within the beeches. The bedrock strata immediately adjoining sections of the proposed site are fractured and fissured in such a way that the methane by-product of the infill material could find its way through the substrata into the beeches. The corporation has therefore commissioned another report on the potential effects of pollution as a consequence of the proposed landfill with industrial and domestic waste.
My hon. Friend may, not unreasonably, say that all these matters must have been thoroughly investigated when the Buckinghamshire minerals local plan was drawn up at the beginning of the decade. The Nature Conservancy Council has addressed this point in its assessment of the potential effects of the proposal on
Burnham beeches. The council says:
The plan dates back to the early 1980s and the NCC would have had an opportunity to comment at the draft stage. That they did not raise any objections to extraction in this area reflects the state of knowledge relating to hydrological matters, and likely implications for sites of nature conservation interest, at that time. Since then a number of sites have suffered badly, particularly in East Anglia, through the effects of changing the groundwater table. In response to these problems our understanding has increased, through the implementation of directed research, and we would almost certainly have questioned the designation of this sie as a preferred area had the plan been presented today.
There are two additional matters of relevance to the minerals local plan. The first is that the description of the buffer zone in the plan is out of date following residential development of the land. The second is that the plan
envisages a maximum production rate of 100,000 tonnes per annum, whereas the application proposes 150,000 tonnes per annum. To summarise this substantive reason, Burnham beeches could be irreparably damaged by the proposal. The Summerleage Gravel Company Limited has written to me today to say:
We pose no threat to Burnham Beeches.
That is a disputed issue of such importance that it should
be considered by an independent public inquiry.
The procedural reason why the planning application should be called in arises from the need for an overall environmental assessment. As my hon. Friend knows, the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 came into effect on 15 July. It is, of course, no coincidence that this planning application was submitted on 14 July, because the chief planning officer advised Summerleage to get its planning application in quickly to avoid the effect of the regulations. This suggests that the planning officer took the view that, had the regulations been in force, an environmental assessment might have been necessary.
My hon. Friend wrote to me on 9 January to explain the position in relation to planning applications made in the period from 3 to 14 July. The directive ought to have come into effect in the United Kingdom on 3 July. My hon. Friend told me that it would be open to the Secretary of State to call in such an application for his own decision, if it appeared to him to relate to a project that might fall within the terms of the directive. In that event, my hon. Friend told me, the Secretary of State would be likely to arrange an inquiry, the procedure for which would achieve

the principal objective of the directive. In this way, the spirit of the directive would be respected in the case of applications lodged during this period.
The Department's circular on environmental assessment, which was issued last year, explains that it is a technique for drawing together in a systematic way expert quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment of a project's environmental effects, and presenting the results in a way which enables the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for modifying or mitigating them, to be properly evaluated by the relevant decision-making body before a decision is given.
In my view, that is precisely what is required in this case: a drawing together in a systematic way of all the evidence and the presentation of the results in a way that facilitates a proper evaluation. In the absence of an environmental assessment, which the applicant has contrived to avoid, this can be achieved only by a public inquiry.
My hon. Friend might say that such an inquiry would place a heavy burden on all the parties involved. My answer to that is that, when it comes to the preservation of something as special as Burnham beeches, there is a heavy responsibility on all of us to ensure that its future is secure.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many of the environmental matters that have to be considered in a case such as this are highly technical. There is, no doubt, no shortage of technical expertise at county hall, but for the reasons I have given, it is vital that there should be an independent inquiry into all these matters.
I understand that the county planning committee proposes to consider this matter in April. I doubt very much whether it will have all the information it needs to be able to make an informed decision by then. A public inquiry would be able to consider all the important issues in a sensible timescale.
Some 200 of my constituents have written to me on this matter. A rather larger number attended a public meeting recently. Many organisations support the calling in of this application. They are the British Lichen Society, Britwell parish council, the Bucks, Berks and Oxon Naturalists Trust, Burnham parish council, the corporation of London, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, English Heritage, Farnham Royal parish council, Friends of the Earth, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Ramblers Association. There is widespread local concern about the impact that this development would have on the whole surrounding area, and I urge my hon. Friend to call the application in.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on the lucid way in which he has raised this important matter. He has addressed a matter of considerable worry to many of his constituents and to others who enjoy the beauty and tranquility of Burnham beeches.
Outside Greater London and the metropolitan areas, day-to-day planning responsibility for minerals planning and development control is vested in the county councils. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does have discretion under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to require a planning application to be


referred to him for decision, it is a long-established policy for the Secretary of State not to interfere with the jurisdiction of planning authorities unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Reference to the Secretary of State is required only when matters of more than local importance are raised by the application. This is an important principle. Parliament has given clear duties and responsibilities to the mineral planning authorities. They are frequently faced with difficult and contentious proposals for mineral development and they have to balance the need for mineral supplies to be maintained against the need to preserve the countryside and the environment. Mineral planning authorities generally face up to their responsibilities well, and it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to intervene unnecessarily in the development control process.
A significant feature of this case is that the application relates to a site designated a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction in the Buckinghamshire minerals subject local plan, as my hon. Friend said. This plan aimed to provide for sand and gravel production in the county at about 16 million tonnes over the period 1981–91. The plan identified a number of preferred areas in the south of the county, together with some areas of search elsewhere in the county, where this target could be met with the least environmental damage. Within these preferred areas, favourable consideration would be given to applications for sand and gravel extraction, although each application would have to be judged on its own merits.
This minerals subject plan was the subject of a long and detailed public inquiry, and the possibility of designating this area east of Burnham, the so-called area 17, was thoroughly debated. The inspector who conducted the inquiry concluded that the area was suitable as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction, subject to conditions concerned with access and with the safeguarding of three listed buildings in the area. In his view, sand and gravel extraction could take place without unacceptable visual intrusion if suitable earth bunds were erected.
Buckinghamshire county council adopted this plan in April 1982. In July of that year it granted planning permission to the Summerleaze Gravel Company Limited to extract gravel from a 10 hectare site within this preferred area. As my hon. Friend said, the company has now submitted a new application to extract gravel from almost the whole of the preferred area, and it is this application which has generated the current controversy.
It has been argued by some of those who have made representations opposing the application that this minerals local plan is out of date, and my hon. Friend spoke to that point. That is an aspect which the Secretary of State will have to consider, notwithstanding the fact that the plan was designed to cover the period up to 1991. It is the statutory development plan for mineral development in the county and, as such, the county council is obliged to take it into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications.
My hon. Friend expressed particular worries about a threat to Burnham beeches, which is a site of special scientific interest. I wish to reassure him that I am in no doubt about the national importance of the beeches. Their history, habitats and flora are all well documented and they must be protected. I am sure that this view is shared by Buckinghamshire county council.
The possibility of an adverse effect on the hydrology of the Burnham beeches area appears to be a particular concern, not least to the Nature Conservancy Council. My hon. Friend pointed out, fairly, that this is to a large extent a new issue which was not canvassed when the minerals local plan was debated. This is clearly a matter which needs to be investigated. It will need to be established whether there is a hydraulic connection between the water in the glacial sands and gravels which underlie the beeches and water in the Boyn Hill terrace gravels which the applicants propose to work.
I understand that the county council has asked the applicants to provide a report on the likely effects of their proposals on the area's hydrology and that the council has retained an independent hydrological expert to examine that report when it is produced. I am sure that the applicants realise that they must satisfy the planning authority that the working of the application site will not affect the water regime at Burnham beeches.
I understand that the City of London corporation has also commissioned some hydrological studies into this matter and has written to the county council saying that its preliminary studies indicate that there is a link between the groundwater underlying Burnham beeches and the site which is the subject of the planning application. It would be extremely helpful if the corporation could make any evidence it has available to the county council, and to the applicants' hydrological consultants to help them resolve the matter.
My hon. Friend raised the question whether the applicants should be required to provide an environmental assessment of their proposals. The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 require developers to provide an environmental assessment to accompany planning applications for certain developments if they are likely to have significant effects by virtue of factors such as size, nature or location.
As my hon. Friend said, these regulations apply to applications submitted on or after 15 July last year but implement an EC directive on environmental assessment which came into force on 3 July. The Summerleaze Gravel Company Limited submitted its planning application on 14 July.
Two questions therefore arise. First, there is the general question whether planning applications made before the United Kingdom regulations came into force on 15 July 1988, but after the EC directive came into force on 3 July 1988, should be subject to the requirement to provide an environmental assessment. Second, there is the question whether this particular planning application would have needed to have been accompanied by an environmental assessment if it had been submitted on or after 15 July.
On the first point, under normal circumstances United Kingdom legislation is not applied retrospectively. and in the planning system it has been considered generally to be both against the principles of natural justice and impractical to alter provisions affecting a particular application after it has been made. The 1988 regulations do not apply, therefore, to planning applications made before 15 July 1988, when the United Kingdom regulations came into force.
Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the spirit of the directive will be respected in the case of applications lodged in the relatively short period between the entry into force of the EC directive and the starting date for the


United Kingdom regulations. If any relevant planning application made between the two dates is drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention, he will consider whether it would have required assessment under the regulations if they had applied to it. It would then be open to my right hon. Friend to call in the applications for his decision if it appears to him to be such a case apart from any other grounds he might have for calling the application in. In that event he would be likely to arrange an inquiry, the procedure for which would achieve the directive's aims of supplying environmental information and consultation with bodies with relevant responsibilities.
It has been pointed out in representations that the site area of this application is 2 hectares greater than the indicative 50-hectare threshold for sand and gravel operations which is mentioned in the Departmental circular which accompanied the regulations. However, the size thresholds for mineral operations referred to in the circular are only indicative, and projects which exceed the thresholds will not in every case require assessment. The main criterion is whether the proposal raises the likelihood of significant environmental effects. On the information available to me, it would appear that the hydrological

studies which have been set in train will cover the issue which would assume greatest importance in any environmental assessment of this application.
My right hon. Friend is considering this matter in the light of the representations he has received. Clearly, an important consideration will be the possible impact of the proposed sand and gravel extraction on the hydrology of the area. As I have already mentioned, the mineral planning authority is acting quite properly and responsibly in looking into this, and my right hon. Friend will wish to take account of its investigations, and the other points raised so eloquently this evening by my hon. Friend, before reaching a decision on whether or not to call in this particular sand and gravel extraction proposal for his own determination.
My hon. Friend mentioned that, if there were to be a public inquiry, it would be a burden. That would not be a constraint on the Department's consideration whether it was necessary to call in the application. I can assure my hon. Friend that would not be a relevant consideration; we would judge the issue on the other criteria to which I have referred. I and my right hon. Friend are well aware of the importance of Burnham beeches, and before reaching a decision we shall very carefully consider all the issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past One o'clock.